Gandhi, Godse and Geeta
Dost Mittar November 10, 2002
#156 Posted by MantoLives on January 16, 2006 4:05:40 am
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
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
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#155 Posted by okaab on May 11, 2005 12:07:02 am
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.
Further, ethics and morals are context-sensitive. What is right in one context may not be right in another.
#154 Posted by sarwar on September 10, 2003 12:24:24 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#153 Posted by arjun_m on November 21, 2002 8:10:48 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#152 Posted by sadna on November 21, 2002 7:15:06 am
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.
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.
#151 Posted by Studebaker on November 20, 2002 7:13:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#150 Posted by Pankaj on November 19, 2002 4:44:40 pm
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.
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.
#149 Posted by rsridhar on November 19, 2002 2:38:12 pm
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
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
#148 Posted by roohi on November 18, 2002 8:52:23 am
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.
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.
#147 Posted by sadna on November 17, 2002 12:31:45 pm
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.
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.
#146 Posted by veeresh on November 17, 2002 10:15:15 am
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?
#145 Posted by Maharana on November 17, 2002 10:15:15 am
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
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
#144 Posted by sadna on November 17, 2002 8:05:47 am
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.`
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.`
#143 Posted by ZafarA on November 17, 2002 8:05:47 am
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?
``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?
#139 Posted by Pardesi on November 16, 2002 12:35:28 pm
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?
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?
#138 Posted by sadna on November 16, 2002 11:58:10 am
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.
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.
#137 Posted by SameerJB on November 16, 2002 10:02:18 am
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.
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.
#136 Posted by westwind on November 16, 2002 10:02:17 am
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.
#135 Posted by sadna on November 16, 2002 10:02:17 am
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.
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.
#134 Posted by veeresh on November 16, 2002 7:01:52 am
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?
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?
#133 Posted by harimau on November 16, 2002 7:01:52 am
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.
[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.
#132 Posted by Pardesi on November 16, 2002 7:01:52 am
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.
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.
#130 Posted by sadna on November 16, 2002 12:09:50 am
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?
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?
#129 Posted by GhalibZaman on November 15, 2002 10:01:27 pm
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 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.
#128 Posted by Ras on November 15, 2002 10:01:27 pm
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
#127 Posted by nooralain on November 15, 2002 7:59:26 pm
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? :)
#126 Posted by rsridhar on November 15, 2002 5:14:50 pm
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
``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
#125 Posted by arjun_m on November 15, 2002 1:13:31 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#124 Posted by veeresh on November 15, 2002 10:27:50 am
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?
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?
#123 Posted by nasah on November 15, 2002 9:49:17 am
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:-)
#122 Posted by arjun_m on November 15, 2002 9:30:12 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#121 Posted by arjun_m on November 15, 2002 9:30:12 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#116 Posted by sadna on November 15, 2002 9:29:58 am
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 :)
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 :)
#115 Posted by pmishra2 on November 15, 2002 5:30:13 am
#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.
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.
#114 Posted by sadna on November 15, 2002 5:30:13 am
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 :)
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 :)
#113 Posted by jay on November 15, 2002 5:30:13 am
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.
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.
#112 Posted by veeresh on November 15, 2002 5:30:13 am
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.
#111 Posted by ZafarA on November 15, 2002 5:30:13 am
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.)
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.)
#110 Posted by GhalibZaman on November 14, 2002 11:22:23 pm
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.
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.
#109 Posted by veeresh on November 14, 2002 9:16:46 pm
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 . . .
#108 Posted by SameerJB on November 14, 2002 9:16:46 pm
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.
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.
#107 Posted by rsridhar on November 14, 2002 8:28:14 pm
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
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
#106 Posted by nooralain on November 14, 2002 8:28:14 pm
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.
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.
#105 Posted by GhalibZaman on November 14, 2002 4:57:32 pm
#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.
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.
#104 Posted by nooralain on November 14, 2002 3:09:48 pm
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?
#103 Posted by snow on November 14, 2002 8:53:17 am
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.
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.
#100 Posted by jay on November 14, 2002 5:45:25 am
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.
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.
#99 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 9:22:40 pm
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.
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.
#95 Posted by GhalibZaman on November 13, 2002 1:42:58 pm
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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#93 Posted by pmishra2 on November 13, 2002 1:42:45 pm
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.
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.
#91 Posted by veeresh on November 13, 2002 12:33:02 pm
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?
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?
#90 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 12:33:02 pm
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).
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).
#89 Posted by arjun_m on November 13, 2002 12:33:02 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#88 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 11:56:49 am
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.
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.
#87 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 11:55:05 am
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.
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.
#86 Posted by HN on November 13, 2002 11:35:40 am
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
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
#85 Posted by khamkhwa. on November 13, 2002 11:35:40 am
arjun
(100 when this dude was blind..imagine what would have happened if he wasnt blind).
Errr......didn`t think you needed eyes to.....;)
(100 when this dude was blind..imagine what would have happened if he wasnt blind).
Errr......didn`t think you needed eyes to.....;)
#84 Posted by arjun_m on November 13, 2002 10:12:38 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#83 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 9:11:15 am
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
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
#82 Posted by Pankaj on November 13, 2002 9:11:15 am
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.
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.
#81 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 9:11:15 am
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
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
#80 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 9:11:15 am
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
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
#79 Posted by anil on November 13, 2002 9:11:15 am
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
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
#78 Posted by Pankaj on November 13, 2002 8:14:39 am
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.
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.
#77 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 8:14:39 am
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
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
#76 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 8:14:39 am
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
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
#75 Posted by rsridhar on November 13, 2002 8:14:39 am
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
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
#74 Posted by Harpreet on November 13, 2002 7:27:43 am
I have driven past Kurukshetra many times but never visited it..is it worth stopping by??
#73 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 7:27:43 am
My post #70
PS: correction : Gandhiji was in E Bengal from end of Oct 46 to sometime in Jan 47(more like 2-3 months not 6)
PS: correction : Gandhiji was in E Bengal from end of Oct 46 to sometime in Jan 47(more like 2-3 months not 6)
#72 Posted by rsaxena on November 13, 2002 7:05:49 am
re: rsridhar
{Majority of Indians (including educated ones like me) believe Mahabharata and the epic battle really happened. }
...the mahabharat represents some of the most profound thinking on the human experience...it is creative and imaginative...perhaps there is symbolism based on real events of the time....but let us not insult the author by suggesting that we think it all really happened, particularly as described...
{Majority of Indians (including educated ones like me) believe Mahabharata and the epic battle really happened. }
...the mahabharat represents some of the most profound thinking on the human experience...it is creative and imaginative...perhaps there is symbolism based on real events of the time....but let us not insult the author by suggesting that we think it all really happened, particularly as described...
#71 Posted by nasah on November 13, 2002 7:05:49 am
sameer /dostmitter -- at the end of the epic war almost every one of the Family was dead except the Pandavas brothers –
It is said that poor Pandavas were so heartbroken with that pyrrhic victory that they, with Draupadi, self-exile themselves to mountains in Nepal in an area that borders UP.
Interestingly enough even today, up in the high mountains of Nepal -- there is a tribe that claims Pandavas as its ancestors -- and practices Polyandry among its people!
It is said that poor Pandavas were so heartbroken with that pyrrhic victory that they, with Draupadi, self-exile themselves to mountains in Nepal in an area that borders UP.
Interestingly enough even today, up in the high mountains of Nepal -- there is a tribe that claims Pandavas as its ancestors -- and practices Polyandry among its people!
#70 Posted by jay on November 13, 2002 7:05:40 am
Sadna,
One can quote various verses and interpretations of gita and tie oneself in knots. In an operational sense, hinduism did not include the upliftment of the downtrodden, compassion for the fellow humans. It is worth noting that untill recently there has been no hindu charitable organisations, no orphanages, no salvation army to help the poor, no system for collecting contributions from the avaerage man in the street to consolidate to a common good as in a christian society. No love thy neighbour, no sakkat. Helping the dalits and non-violence are the christian/ budhist rereading of gita by gamdhi, no one in the past had done that.
Many rich indians , maharajas have indulged in charity at the promptings of private karma, not from a notion of social obligation. Hinduism is devoid of aany social consciousness as we understand it today, weach left to her/ his own karma. Ironically, this is the strength of hindus today, adapting to the cultures from fiji to surinam to the US.
Sridhar,
Quoting from memory dating back 30 years, Aurobindo in his essays on gita talks about the role of adi sankara. Till sankara came along there has been no mention of gita in the discourses by earlier scholars. It was sankara who promoted gita to the present status at par with vedas and upanishads. Final comment by aurobindo is that if it was inserted by sankara, he has done a splendid job.
As you say, sankaras main challenge was to contain bidhism and he achieved this by making Budhha the 9 th avatar, another god in the hindu pantheon. Now dont tell me that you havnot heard of this.
One can quote various verses and interpretations of gita and tie oneself in knots. In an operational sense, hinduism did not include the upliftment of the downtrodden, compassion for the fellow humans. It is worth noting that untill recently there has been no hindu charitable organisations, no orphanages, no salvation army to help the poor, no system for collecting contributions from the avaerage man in the street to consolidate to a common good as in a christian society. No love thy neighbour, no sakkat. Helping the dalits and non-violence are the christian/ budhist rereading of gita by gamdhi, no one in the past had done that.
Many rich indians , maharajas have indulged in charity at the promptings of private karma, not from a notion of social obligation. Hinduism is devoid of aany social consciousness as we understand it today, weach left to her/ his own karma. Ironically, this is the strength of hindus today, adapting to the cultures from fiji to surinam to the US.
Sridhar,
Quoting from memory dating back 30 years, Aurobindo in his essays on gita talks about the role of adi sankara. Till sankara came along there has been no mention of gita in the discourses by earlier scholars. It was sankara who promoted gita to the present status at par with vedas and upanishads. Final comment by aurobindo is that if it was inserted by sankara, he has done a splendid job.
As you say, sankaras main challenge was to contain bidhism and he achieved this by making Budhha the 9 th avatar, another god in the hindu pantheon. Now dont tell me that you havnot heard of this.
#69 Posted by jay on November 13, 2002 7:05:40 am
Arjun,
Reality of mahabarat war could be important for the historians and archeologists. The sory covers the entire gamut of human life and as a setting for the gita is superb. I prefer to believe that it is fiction, too many magical things that defy reality, but are good props to eccentuate and intensify the human drama.
Reality of mahabarat war could be important for the historians and archeologists. The sory covers the entire gamut of human life and as a setting for the gita is superb. I prefer to believe that it is fiction, too many magical things that defy reality, but are good props to eccentuate and intensify the human drama.
#68 Posted by sadna on November 13, 2002 7:05:40 am
dost-mittar #55
Thanks very much, that was informative and painful to read.
I too donot agree with Godse`s reasons for his assassination. He seems to have been so angry he blamed Gandhiji for everything without accepting the inability of Gandhiji to influence events and choices beyond a point.
After understanding Jinnah and the Muslim League were out of the reach of Gandhi`s influence, Godse contradicts himself in his condemnation of Gandhiji. Why blame Gandhi for something Godse himself says he could not change, namely the creation of Pakistan?
Godse`s implication that the influence of Gandhiji on the Congress policy was so complete that he solely was responsible for conceding Partition is not supportable by facts, in my view. Godse condemns Gandhiji and the Congress for the opposite, appeasing the ML and conceding Partition. He would have been even angrier about `appeasment` had the Congress accepted ML demands. Godse would have never gotten what he considered `practical politics`(I believe), namely Hindus unashamedly asserting domination of numbers and the Hindu Mahasabha demand of one man one vote.
His generalization that Gandhi abandoned Hindus to their fate in communal riots is also mistaken. For example, Gandhi travelled to Noakhali ? East Bengal and remained there for 6 months (Oct 46-March 47) working to restore peace after post-direct action riots there targeted the minority Hindus including their women.
The core reason for the assassination seems to be this: Godse thought that after Gandhiji`s death, the Indian government would feel free to attack and retake Pakistan to put an end to the humanitarian disaster. He was mistaken in this, too not sure why exactly, one reason was possibly because the British hadn`t quit the Indian Army and wouldnot have stood for it. Was Godse unaware of this ? In any case would attacking or threatening Pakistan have led to an end of the humanitarian disaster or compounded it? Did Godse ever ponder over this?
This is just my speculation, that at the time, Gandhiji had a much larger time scale of concern than the immediate present. (One can understand this would have looked very much like inhumanity to the refugees who arrived in India). What Gandhi had forecast much before was that splitting India on religious lines would create two perpetually hostile militarized states with their minorities under perpetual seige(someone had once posted this, I`ll try to find it again).
If he couldnot stop Partition and he couldnot stop the violence, what Gandhjii could attempt was damage control : 1.establishment of trust and amicable relations between the new India and new Pakistan 2. ensure safety and future of Muslims in India.
Though professing himself a patriot, Godse was too full of immediate events to comprehend the above two issues vital to the country`s future. Was Gandhiji being realistic in trying to accomplish the above, given how politically incorrect his stands were alongside the violence and the large scale misery? Don`t know enough history to answer that. But events of the succeeding years prove that if Gandhiji had such apprehensions and aims, he was not wrong to have them.
About whether Godse was right or wrong in doing what he considered his duty.
Lets say there is a road with cars and trucks travelling on it and many people cross that road daily.
An adult man sees people crossing the road. Though in full possession of his faculties, he hasnot understood the significance of the cars and trucks on the road or the fact that everyone who crosses looks on both sides for approaching vehicles before crossing. He also fails to understand the importance of a sign which says cross the road carefully. He simply thinks if others can cross the road, so can he, period. One day he thinks its his duty to cross the road. He does so, and he gets hit by a car and he and the car passengers die and road is closed for 2 hours while they mop him off the pavement.
Is there any meaning in pondering that since he was doing his duty as he thought it, was he right or wrong? Or whether should people cross the road when they know others may be mislead into doing so unsafely? Should roads be built and should we manufacture cars and trucks?
We may say, for the protection of those individuals who are not out and out rash, judgements of pedestrians go wrong so let us have public awareness campaign including short films where fictional character A got hit for carelessness and fictional character B crossed safely after taking precautions. Let us build an overbridge and impose a fine for not using it. But the same man was intent on doing his duty so he said I am willing to pay the fine, and look the fictional characters A and B crossed the road so I will too. He did and many got killed.
Is there any point in asking then whether the man is right or wrong?
Thanks very much, that was informative and painful to read.
I too donot agree with Godse`s reasons for his assassination. He seems to have been so angry he blamed Gandhiji for everything without accepting the inability of Gandhiji to influence events and choices beyond a point.
After understanding Jinnah and the Muslim League were out of the reach of Gandhi`s influence, Godse contradicts himself in his condemnation of Gandhiji. Why blame Gandhi for something Godse himself says he could not change, namely the creation of Pakistan?
Godse`s implication that the influence of Gandhiji on the Congress policy was so complete that he solely was responsible for conceding Partition is not supportable by facts, in my view. Godse condemns Gandhiji and the Congress for the opposite, appeasing the ML and conceding Partition. He would have been even angrier about `appeasment` had the Congress accepted ML demands. Godse would have never gotten what he considered `practical politics`(I believe), namely Hindus unashamedly asserting domination of numbers and the Hindu Mahasabha demand of one man one vote.
His generalization that Gandhi abandoned Hindus to their fate in communal riots is also mistaken. For example, Gandhi travelled to Noakhali ? East Bengal and remained there for 6 months (Oct 46-March 47) working to restore peace after post-direct action riots there targeted the minority Hindus including their women.
The core reason for the assassination seems to be this: Godse thought that after Gandhiji`s death, the Indian government would feel free to attack and retake Pakistan to put an end to the humanitarian disaster. He was mistaken in this, too not sure why exactly, one reason was possibly because the British hadn`t quit the Indian Army and wouldnot have stood for it. Was Godse unaware of this ? In any case would attacking or threatening Pakistan have led to an end of the humanitarian disaster or compounded it? Did Godse ever ponder over this?
This is just my speculation, that at the time, Gandhiji had a much larger time scale of concern than the immediate present. (One can understand this would have looked very much like inhumanity to the refugees who arrived in India). What Gandhi had forecast much before was that splitting India on religious lines would create two perpetually hostile militarized states with their minorities under perpetual seige(someone had once posted this, I`ll try to find it again).
If he couldnot stop Partition and he couldnot stop the violence, what Gandhjii could attempt was damage control : 1.establishment of trust and amicable relations between the new India and new Pakistan 2. ensure safety and future of Muslims in India.
Though professing himself a patriot, Godse was too full of immediate events to comprehend the above two issues vital to the country`s future. Was Gandhiji being realistic in trying to accomplish the above, given how politically incorrect his stands were alongside the violence and the large scale misery? Don`t know enough history to answer that. But events of the succeeding years prove that if Gandhiji had such apprehensions and aims, he was not wrong to have them.
About whether Godse was right or wrong in doing what he considered his duty.
Lets say there is a road with cars and trucks travelling on it and many people cross that road daily.
An adult man sees people crossing the road. Though in full possession of his faculties, he hasnot understood the significance of the cars and trucks on the road or the fact that everyone who crosses looks on both sides for approaching vehicles before crossing. He also fails to understand the importance of a sign which says cross the road carefully. He simply thinks if others can cross the road, so can he, period. One day he thinks its his duty to cross the road. He does so, and he gets hit by a car and he and the car passengers die and road is closed for 2 hours while they mop him off the pavement.
Is there any meaning in pondering that since he was doing his duty as he thought it, was he right or wrong? Or whether should people cross the road when they know others may be mislead into doing so unsafely? Should roads be built and should we manufacture cars and trucks?
We may say, for the protection of those individuals who are not out and out rash, judgements of pedestrians go wrong so let us have public awareness campaign including short films where fictional character A got hit for carelessness and fictional character B crossed safely after taking precautions. Let us build an overbridge and impose a fine for not using it. But the same man was intent on doing his duty so he said I am willing to pay the fine, and look the fictional characters A and B crossed the road so I will too. He did and many got killed.
Is there any point in asking then whether the man is right or wrong?
#67 Posted by Saminasha on November 13, 2002 7:05:39 am
Dost Mittar,
Great piece! And many of the responses were as interesting as your question. Will be looking up the Geeta this summer.
Just a quick couple of thoughts;
Yes, it was quite possible for Godse to read the Geeta and situate himself within it in the way he did. The dynamics of morality and context are reflected in reader interpretation-the number of invisible narratives within a text are innumerable. Godse found one narrative and created another-albeit murderous and tragic.
Has anyone been watching the PBS docu on Jimmy Carter? His Christian conscience and humanism supposedly was perceived as ``idealist`` and ``weak`` by a country (the majority, anyway) unused to such vision. So heckled was he in his role as an international peacemaker that I suspect he wasn`t fulfilling his role in the mainstream American narrative-Americans and their gas comes first, and honest self introspection was the last thing Washington players do....
Great piece! And many of the responses were as interesting as your question. Will be looking up the Geeta this summer.
Just a quick couple of thoughts;
Yes, it was quite possible for Godse to read the Geeta and situate himself within it in the way he did. The dynamics of morality and context are reflected in reader interpretation-the number of invisible narratives within a text are innumerable. Godse found one narrative and created another-albeit murderous and tragic.
Has anyone been watching the PBS docu on Jimmy Carter? His Christian conscience and humanism supposedly was perceived as ``idealist`` and ``weak`` by a country (the majority, anyway) unused to such vision. So heckled was he in his role as an international peacemaker that I suspect he wasn`t fulfilling his role in the mainstream American narrative-Americans and their gas comes first, and honest self introspection was the last thing Washington players do....
#66 Posted by arjun_m on November 13, 2002 7:05:39 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#65 Posted by pmishra2 on November 13, 2002 7:05:38 am
#64, #61 sridhar, arjun_m
It is a deeply futilize exercise to look into older religous traditions and debate whether or not certain figures were ``real`` or not.
Was there really a dude called Abraham in the middle-east? Was there really a jewish rabbi called Yeshua (Jesus) around 10 BC? No one really knows and certainly no empirical evidence exists of their ``reality``.
Similar comments apply to Mahabharata and Ramayana.
What is important is that these figures and stories (I have heard the term ``sacred stories`` used) are deeply important to a lot of people. Hence, it is valuable to understand what (1) the exact content in various sacred stories (2) people;s interpretation of the same.
It is a deeply futilize exercise to look into older religous traditions and debate whether or not certain figures were ``real`` or not.
Was there really a dude called Abraham in the middle-east? Was there really a jewish rabbi called Yeshua (Jesus) around 10 BC? No one really knows and certainly no empirical evidence exists of their ``reality``.
Similar comments apply to Mahabharata and Ramayana.
What is important is that these figures and stories (I have heard the term ``sacred stories`` used) are deeply important to a lot of people. Hence, it is valuable to understand what (1) the exact content in various sacred stories (2) people;s interpretation of the same.
#64 Posted by SameerJB on November 12, 2002 8:53:02 pm
dosy-mittar #53: I understand the problem with the timeline of Mahabharata war and the final copy of Bhagawad Gita. Although it is read as eyewitness account, in present tense, it is not necessarily formulated in the final form at that time. As for Mahabharata war goes, it has been suggested a war between conservatives and liberals, between Punjabi plains and Ganges plains, between first cousins on inheritance of throne and so on. It is true that they did not get mentioned in the jatakas of Buddhism, just as Jesus did not get mentioning by the first century AD well-known historians. Not getting mentioned, not taking place or taking place later can not be easily deduced from the accounts. Many western authors date it to 5-6 century AD durng Gupta dynasty. It is the time when perhaps it was finally collated from various sources. The original event may or may not be as big as it sounds, if composer had vested interest in the memory and grandeur of winners.
However, it sounds that event took place much much before 500-600 AD.
Historical evidence exists of Jat and Rajputs tribes in Punjab during this time. One well-known example is around 500 AD gravestone that reads, burial of the Jat prince of Salpura. The names of Punjabi tribes in Mahabharata do not make any mention of these two major groups. Not a single tribe name of 10 tribes mentioned supporting Kauravas resemble to any current tribal name. It is impossible for all ten to completely disappear without trace in 1500 years. Only one, perhaps a conservative tribe, from Sivipura (Shorkot) who opted to support Pandavas is traced to modern day Sials due to their presence in large numbers in this area and certain features that suggest them to be an older tribe than later Scythian migrants. If this has any truth, the war took place in BC and not AD. Going back to 200 BC, many of the names mentioned in Alexander`s history in India are traceable but again the ten lost tribes of Mahabharata are not. I am ``convinced`` that Japanese are the lost ten tribes of Punjab and not the lost ten tribes of Israel. How about a *wink* here?
Similarly a fermented drink mentioned in Mahabharata, favorite bhangra party drink of that time totally disappeared from history. There can be two possibilities. If the war is during AD, it was a minor local conflict. If it was a big war, it is much older.
However, it sounds that event took place much much before 500-600 AD.
Historical evidence exists of Jat and Rajputs tribes in Punjab during this time. One well-known example is around 500 AD gravestone that reads, burial of the Jat prince of Salpura. The names of Punjabi tribes in Mahabharata do not make any mention of these two major groups. Not a single tribe name of 10 tribes mentioned supporting Kauravas resemble to any current tribal name. It is impossible for all ten to completely disappear without trace in 1500 years. Only one, perhaps a conservative tribe, from Sivipura (Shorkot) who opted to support Pandavas is traced to modern day Sials due to their presence in large numbers in this area and certain features that suggest them to be an older tribe than later Scythian migrants. If this has any truth, the war took place in BC and not AD. Going back to 200 BC, many of the names mentioned in Alexander`s history in India are traceable but again the ten lost tribes of Mahabharata are not. I am ``convinced`` that Japanese are the lost ten tribes of Punjab and not the lost ten tribes of Israel. How about a *wink* here?
Similarly a fermented drink mentioned in Mahabharata, favorite bhangra party drink of that time totally disappeared from history. There can be two possibilities. If the war is during AD, it was a minor local conflict. If it was a big war, it is much older.
#63 Posted by veeresh on November 12, 2002 8:53:02 pm
Shall we see another Gandhi soon?
Gandhi has often been described as an excellent agitationist with superior communication skills. Some of his writings, corrected for timeline and history, would have made excellent blogs.
Yes, we shall see plenty of Gandhis challenging the system . . . and there are so many more countries for the emerging Gandhis to choose from, too. I think Gandhis spring from the most restrictive of systems.
Any bets that Pakistan will see a Gandhi emerging soon?
Gandhi has often been described as an excellent agitationist with superior communication skills. Some of his writings, corrected for timeline and history, would have made excellent blogs.
Yes, we shall see plenty of Gandhis challenging the system . . . and there are so many more countries for the emerging Gandhis to choose from, too. I think Gandhis spring from the most restrictive of systems.
Any bets that Pakistan will see a Gandhi emerging soon?
#62 Posted by rsridhar on November 12, 2002 8:53:02 pm
re:#61 by arjun_m
Dude,
Majority of Indians (including educated ones like me) believe Mahabharata and the epic battle really happened. You know that right. Some idiot you are.
Sridhar
Dude,
Majority of Indians (including educated ones like me) believe Mahabharata and the epic battle really happened. You know that right. Some idiot you are.
Sridhar
#61 Posted by arjun_m on November 12, 2002 3:29:51 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#60 Posted by SameerJB on November 12, 2002 1:30:27 pm
Jay: It is a matter of mere scholarly debate when Bhagawad Gita was inserted. Even considering it written by Vyasa does not exclude the possibility of after thoughts. Bhagawat Gita is written in epic poem style and taking out a verse or two would be out of context. It is not written in ghazal style, rather it should be read in its entirity to get the essence of it, like Homer`s epics.
Reading it as after thought leads to better understanding without lowering its scriptural importance. It changes it from a case of good against evil to a case for preventive care and precaution against prescription and treatment.
As an after thought, it is Dr. Krishna treating Arjun`s restlessness and insomnia due to the moral dilemma of fighting and bloodshed againast his own cousins. Dr. Krishna is ultimate psychiatrist here. He is prescribing regimented treatment to cope and cure Arjun`s moral dilemma using Dharma to offset bad Karma.He finally succeds in curing Arjun by convincing him that his Karma was in fact good according to Dharma. However, this is not the moral of the story.
The moral of the story is even better Karma through Dharma used in prevention and precaution. It is through Dharma applied to Karma, not to get into moral dilemma on the first place so that the question of restlessness and insomnia does not arise. Otherwise it needs regimented doses of Dharma to cure it.
This is what Gandhi is supposed to extract from Gita and his non-violence is a preacution and preventive mesaure against falling into moral dilemma. This is the esssence of Gita and not good vs. evil. Preventive Karma medicine is better than prescription Karma medicine because of no side effects or long term damage to Dharma.
Arjun had to go for a treatment to cope and cure only because moral dilemma happened. It does not matter if Gita is the moving account of events or after thoughts, if the conclusion drawn from it is Karma of the higher order. Godse went exactly opposite way.
Reading it as after thought leads to better understanding without lowering its scriptural importance. It changes it from a case of good against evil to a case for preventive care and precaution against prescription and treatment.
As an after thought, it is Dr. Krishna treating Arjun`s restlessness and insomnia due to the moral dilemma of fighting and bloodshed againast his own cousins. Dr. Krishna is ultimate psychiatrist here. He is prescribing regimented treatment to cope and cure Arjun`s moral dilemma using Dharma to offset bad Karma.He finally succeds in curing Arjun by convincing him that his Karma was in fact good according to Dharma. However, this is not the moral of the story.
The moral of the story is even better Karma through Dharma used in prevention and precaution. It is through Dharma applied to Karma, not to get into moral dilemma on the first place so that the question of restlessness and insomnia does not arise. Otherwise it needs regimented doses of Dharma to cure it.
This is what Gandhi is supposed to extract from Gita and his non-violence is a preacution and preventive mesaure against falling into moral dilemma. This is the esssence of Gita and not good vs. evil. Preventive Karma medicine is better than prescription Karma medicine because of no side effects or long term damage to Dharma.
Arjun had to go for a treatment to cope and cure only because moral dilemma happened. It does not matter if Gita is the moving account of events or after thoughts, if the conclusion drawn from it is Karma of the higher order. Godse went exactly opposite way.
#59 Posted by veeresh on November 12, 2002 1:30:27 pm
dost-mittar/Nand . . . the Yervada Jail/Aga Khan Palace reference was in context with the difference in ``jail`` conditions that the absolutely fair level playing Britishers imposed on general desi freedom fighters versus Congress type freedom fighters. It has taken India over 50 years to give places like Yervada Jail/Pune and Cellular Jail/Andamans their due place . . . while the fantastic Aga Khan Palace with its 53 aircon rooms serving as Gandhi`s jail . . .
Harpreet, Stuka, Sabina, others . . . for the Bhagvad Geeta, may I suggest a dispassionate reading of the various translations by Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan (late & ex-President of India) . . . the best advice I got when I read it was to try to keep the question ``Who and why am I`` foremost while trying to understand it. 9 months at anchorage in the Persian Gulf helped, alongwith liberal doses of other books . . . most religions.
#56 Posted by rsridhar on November 12, 2002 12:06:39 pm
re: Gandhi, Godse and Geetha
As i said in my last post, Geetha can be interpreted by different people in different ways, depending on their advancements in the spiritual sphere. For some, it is just a text that tells about how societies should behave and what is right or wrong. For others, it has a deep spiritual and esoteric message.
Gandhijis whole life was a constant struggle between his outer physical and inner spiritual spheres. He constantly tried to perfect himself spiritually and did whatever was possible towards that end. He read Geetha as he claimed it gave him deep spiritual insights and solace (an inner peace). He used Geetha to resolve a number of inner conflicts that confounded him from time to time.
Hindu spiritual texts teach us that man needs to conquer all desires before he can reach spiritual perfections. Gandhiji undertook Brahmacharya (lifelong celibacy) at 35 years of age after consulting his wife and getting her approval. He seemed to have had an epic conflict against his ``natural`` sexual urges and tried spiritual path and teachings of Geetha to overcome this conflict. Gandhiji`s vegetarianism, his frequent fasts at self-purification, even his carefully chosen diet (eating only what he called ``satvic`` food and shunning the food that increased animal tendencies) are a testimony to his inner conflict. This did not mean he shunned female company (Mullahs may have a lesson to learn here). He realised that women are not to blame for his weakness, that the conflict was really in the mind. Women were, OTOH, his constant companions.
Godse is the very antithesis of Gandhiji. It is highly unlikely that this brahmin ever understood the real meaning of Geetha. He probably understood the epic battle at Kurukshetra to mean violence is desirable and rationalised his killing of the mahatma. He was against Gandhiji because he thought Gandhiji did not prevent vivisecton of India. Did he really believe Gandhiji could have prevented partition? Did he not know it was the people and not leaders who decided what they wanted? How could Gandhiji have prevented partition if this is what a large number of muslims wanted. So, what does Godse do? He gets angry and takes the easy way out. He kills the mahatma. This places him at the same level as the evil Kauravas in Mahabharata. Godse is not in the same league as Gandhiji. Godse let the anger and hatred get the better of him. For people like Godse, there is no inner conflict. The choices are simple. You hate somebody and you elimate that person.
Today, Godse clan seems to be on the rise. Rise of BJP, hindutva elements means Godse like creatures abound India and are on the prowl, killing Gandhiji`s teachings and giving it the final burial.
Shall we ever see another Gandhi in a millenium? I doubt it.
Sridhar
As i said in my last post, Geetha can be interpreted by different people in different ways, depending on their advancements in the spiritual sphere. For some, it is just a text that tells about how societies should behave and what is right or wrong. For others, it has a deep spiritual and esoteric message.
Gandhijis whole life was a constant struggle between his outer physical and inner spiritual spheres. He constantly tried to perfect himself spiritually and did whatever was possible towards that end. He read Geetha as he claimed it gave him deep spiritual insights and solace (an inner peace). He used Geetha to resolve a number of inner conflicts that confounded him from time to time.
Hindu spiritual texts teach us that man needs to conquer all desires before he can reach spiritual perfections. Gandhiji undertook Brahmacharya (lifelong celibacy) at 35 years of age after consulting his wife and getting her approval. He seemed to have had an epic conflict against his ``natural`` sexual urges and tried spiritual path and teachings of Geetha to overcome this conflict. Gandhiji`s vegetarianism, his frequent fasts at self-purification, even his carefully chosen diet (eating only what he called ``satvic`` food and shunning the food that increased animal tendencies) are a testimony to his inner conflict. This did not mean he shunned female company (Mullahs may have a lesson to learn here). He realised that women are not to blame for his weakness, that the conflict was really in the mind. Women were, OTOH, his constant companions.
Godse is the very antithesis of Gandhiji. It is highly unlikely that this brahmin ever understood the real meaning of Geetha. He probably understood the epic battle at Kurukshetra to mean violence is desirable and rationalised his killing of the mahatma. He was against Gandhiji because he thought Gandhiji did not prevent vivisecton of India. Did he really believe Gandhiji could have prevented partition? Did he not know it was the people and not leaders who decided what they wanted? How could Gandhiji have prevented partition if this is what a large number of muslims wanted. So, what does Godse do? He gets angry and takes the easy way out. He kills the mahatma. This places him at the same level as the evil Kauravas in Mahabharata. Godse is not in the same league as Gandhiji. Godse let the anger and hatred get the better of him. For people like Godse, there is no inner conflict. The choices are simple. You hate somebody and you elimate that person.
Today, Godse clan seems to be on the rise. Rise of BJP, hindutva elements means Godse like creatures abound India and are on the prowl, killing Gandhiji`s teachings and giving it the final burial.
Shall we ever see another Gandhi in a millenium? I doubt it.
Sridhar
#53 Posted by Urstruly on November 12, 2002 12:05:33 pm
Dost-Mitter
Thank you. That`s the point I was trying to get across i.e. in the matter between Godse and Gandhi, Gita is irrelevant. That was the fallacy in your argument.
#51 Posted by rsridhar on November 12, 2002 10:01:07 am
re: Geetha and the spiritual truths
Jay asked if Geetha was really written at the time of Mahabharata and not interpolated into the main book by Shankaracharya (i presumed he meant Adi Shankara, the first one). I gave an answer but i want to elaborate on it and the spiritual significance of Geetha.
There are some interesting aspects of Geetha (also called Bhagawat Geetha or ``the celestial song``) being discussed in this forum. Pankaj has quoted some beautiful verses. One of them ``karmanyeva...`` is my favourite.
But Geetha is a lot more than just verses. Geetha forms an important chapter in Mahabharata. Scholars do not even know for sure when Mahabharata actually happened. The end of the epic battle is said to have ushered in the Kalyuga, which some place at around 3200 BC. Others have said that it happened anywhere between 6000 BC to 800 BC. So much for the so called experts!
The author of Mahabharata, veda Vyasa lived during the time all the events happened in that epic. He wanted to write the epic for the benefit of humanity and is said to have taken the help of Sri Ganesha (``the elephant headed God). While Vyasa went into deep Samadhi and relived the events and dictated them, Ganeshji dutifully wrote them on palm leaves (and later preserved for posterity thr` word of mouth by pundits, who also copied the original texts). All this happened somewhere in Himalayas and went on non-stop for many months until it was completed.
Geetha, which is a prelude to the epic battle, has message at material, intellectual and spiritual levels and depending on one`s propensities, one can interpret it in any manner possible. Spiritual prophets usually used metaphors, parables and allegories to teach (eg Jesus christ taught mainly thr` parables in Bible). Geeta has been written by Vyasa by interweaning historical facts with psychological and spiritual truths by use of such parables and allegories. The epic battle between the virtuous Pandavas (the five brothers) and the evil Kauravas (the 100 evil ones) also symbolises the constant inner battle that every man has between his material and spiritual aspirations.
Historically, on the brink of such a horrendous war between cousins, it looks unlikely that Krishna and Arjuna would draw their charriots into the open field between the 2 opposing armies and engage in an extensive discourse on ``yoga and dharma``. It is more likely that this chapter is there for a higher purpose. While many of the events in Mahabharata has a historical basis, Vyasa has arranged the characters in a way to propound the essence of ``Dharma`` or rightful living.
As the war is about to start, blind Dhritharashtra implores Sanjaya (the narrator who has been bestowed divine vision to view the war and narrate it to the blind king) as follows:
``Dharmakshetre kurukshetre samaveta yuyutsavah
mamakaah paandavaas caiva kim kurvata sanjaya``
(On the holy plain of kurukshetra, when my offsprings and the sons of Pandu had gathered together, eager for battle, what did they do, O Sanjaya?).
Sanjaya here is both a historical entity and symbolic of ``impartial intuitive self- analysis``.
Paramahamsa Yogananda has written a beautiful 2 volume book ``God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagwat Gita``, which is a spiritual interpretation of the original work. Those interested may read it.
Mahabharata itself transcends time, civilisations and cultures. If anyone has not read it, i recommend C.Rajagopalachari`s book, which is written in simple, lucid English.
More on the spiritual symbolism of Geetha in my future posts.
Sridhar
Jay asked if Geetha was really written at the time of Mahabharata and not interpolated into the main book by Shankaracharya (i presumed he meant Adi Shankara, the first one). I gave an answer but i want to elaborate on it and the spiritual significance of Geetha.
There are some interesting aspects of Geetha (also called Bhagawat Geetha or ``the celestial song``) being discussed in this forum. Pankaj has quoted some beautiful verses. One of them ``karmanyeva...`` is my favourite.
But Geetha is a lot more than just verses. Geetha forms an important chapter in Mahabharata. Scholars do not even know for sure when Mahabharata actually happened. The end of the epic battle is said to have ushered in the Kalyuga, which some place at around 3200 BC. Others have said that it happened anywhere between 6000 BC to 800 BC. So much for the so called experts!
The author of Mahabharata, veda Vyasa lived during the time all the events happened in that epic. He wanted to write the epic for the benefit of humanity and is said to have taken the help of Sri Ganesha (``the elephant headed God). While Vyasa went into deep Samadhi and relived the events and dictated them, Ganeshji dutifully wrote them on palm leaves (and later preserved for posterity thr` word of mouth by pundits, who also copied the original texts). All this happened somewhere in Himalayas and went on non-stop for many months until it was completed.
Geetha, which is a prelude to the epic battle, has message at material, intellectual and spiritual levels and depending on one`s propensities, one can interpret it in any manner possible. Spiritual prophets usually used metaphors, parables and allegories to teach (eg Jesus christ taught mainly thr` parables in Bible). Geeta has been written by Vyasa by interweaning historical facts with psychological and spiritual truths by use of such parables and allegories. The epic battle between the virtuous Pandavas (the five brothers) and the evil Kauravas (the 100 evil ones) also symbolises the constant inner battle that every man has between his material and spiritual aspirations.
Historically, on the brink of such a horrendous war between cousins, it looks unlikely that Krishna and Arjuna would draw their charriots into the open field between the 2 opposing armies and engage in an extensive discourse on ``yoga and dharma``. It is more likely that this chapter is there for a higher purpose. While many of the events in Mahabharata has a historical basis, Vyasa has arranged the characters in a way to propound the essence of ``Dharma`` or rightful living.
As the war is about to start, blind Dhritharashtra implores Sanjaya (the narrator who has been bestowed divine vision to view the war and narrate it to the blind king) as follows:
``Dharmakshetre kurukshetre samaveta yuyutsavah
mamakaah paandavaas caiva kim kurvata sanjaya``
(On the holy plain of kurukshetra, when my offsprings and the sons of Pandu had gathered together, eager for battle, what did they do, O Sanjaya?).
Sanjaya here is both a historical entity and symbolic of ``impartial intuitive self- analysis``.
Paramahamsa Yogananda has written a beautiful 2 volume book ``God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagwat Gita``, which is a spiritual interpretation of the original work. Those interested may read it.
Mahabharata itself transcends time, civilisations and cultures. If anyone has not read it, i recommend C.Rajagopalachari`s book, which is written in simple, lucid English.
More on the spiritual symbolism of Geetha in my future posts.
Sridhar
#50 Posted by nooralain on November 12, 2002 10:00:51 am
mittar ji...your first article on Chowk, mubarak hoN ji! I don`t know enough about the Gita to comment much on this...but have enjoyed the discussion surrounding it. More later, hopefully :)
#49 Posted by temporal on November 12, 2002 10:00:51 am
dost-mittar:
you say:
[...So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?...]
…ironically …our world is full of Godses…from the believers who takes the life of others to those who take their own lives to cause damage to others…all in the name of a belief or cause….
…extrapolating above…in addition to role of scriptures in morality…following queries come to mind:
---what is the role of conscience in our individual and collective moral outlook
---and how much of that role is derived from religion, culture, environment?
further…
…if individual conscience is the driving engine behind individual morality…the dichotomy enters and we cannot blame the message or the messenger when one individual engages in murder and mayhem citing some message while another is horrified and objects to the action citing the same message/messenger...
you say:
[...So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?...]
…ironically …our world is full of Godses…from the believers who takes the life of others to those who take their own lives to cause damage to others…all in the name of a belief or cause….
…extrapolating above…in addition to role of scriptures in morality…following queries come to mind:
---what is the role of conscience in our individual and collective moral outlook
---and how much of that role is derived from religion, culture, environment?
further…
…if individual conscience is the driving engine behind individual morality…the dichotomy enters and we cannot blame the message or the messenger when one individual engages in murder and mayhem citing some message while another is horrified and objects to the action citing the same message/messenger...
#48 Posted by Punjaban on November 12, 2002 9:37:14 am
Dost Mitar, thought provoking article. Sadna, I too tried reading the Gita about a decade ago, maybe its time for a new attempt.
An excerpt from `Freedom by Midnight`
His party set out at sunup. Gandhi`s pretty ninteen-year-old grandniece Manu had put together his Spartan kit: a pen and paper, a needle and thread, an earthern bowl and a wooden spoon, his spinning wheel and his three guru`s, a little ivoy representation of the three monkeys who ``hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.`` Shr also packed in a cotton sack the books that reflected the eclecticism of the man marching into the jungle: the the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran, the Practice and Precepts of Jesus, and a book of Jewish Thoughts.
An excerpt from `Freedom by Midnight`
His party set out at sunup. Gandhi`s pretty ninteen-year-old grandniece Manu had put together his Spartan kit: a pen and paper, a needle and thread, an earthern bowl and a wooden spoon, his spinning wheel and his three guru`s, a little ivoy representation of the three monkeys who ``hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.`` Shr also packed in a cotton sack the books that reflected the eclecticism of the man marching into the jungle: the the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran, the Practice and Precepts of Jesus, and a book of Jewish Thoughts.
#47 Posted by rsridhar on November 12, 2002 8:57:02 am
re:#44 by jay
You seem to sugget that people in those times (especially the learned) were gullible enough to be hoodwinked by Adi Sankara. Remember, he was waging a war for the revival of hinduism and his fight was against Buddhists, Jains and even Kapaliks who were rapidly gaining ground. Something like inserting Geetha in Mahabharata would have exposed him as a manupulator and discredited him in front of so many pundits of different belief system.
Anyway, just claiming something won`t do. You need to post proof of your claim.
Sridhar
You seem to sugget that people in those times (especially the learned) were gullible enough to be hoodwinked by Adi Sankara. Remember, he was waging a war for the revival of hinduism and his fight was against Buddhists, Jains and even Kapaliks who were rapidly gaining ground. Something like inserting Geetha in Mahabharata would have exposed him as a manupulator and discredited him in front of so many pundits of different belief system.
Anyway, just claiming something won`t do. You need to post proof of your claim.
Sridhar
#46 Posted by sadna on November 12, 2002 7:40:36 am
Jay #44
Think about it, here is an answer to dost-mittar`s or perhaps nasahji`s question on another board about why Gandhiji said the Gita inspired his nonviolent satyagraha.
The fundamental premise propounded by the Gita is the Truth that there is divinity/humanity in every human and a person`s own divinity/humanity is manifested through his realisation of this Truth.
If one accepts this fundamental premise of the Gita, then an arbitrary Indian subject who perpetuated violence against or killed an arbitrary Britisher was not only denying the humanity/divinity in the Britisher by his violent acts but was also diminishing his own humanity/divinity through these acts.
A nonviolent satyagraha is a way to put across rebellion which neither negates nor diminishes the humanity of either the rebel or of the object of rebellion. It forces the rebel to conceptualize his rebellion in the broadest and more universal humanist terms and through the methods it adopts ( including putting forth sound principle for the mobilisation of public opinion, civil disobedience, mass meetings, fasting ) it attempts to force the object of rebellion to better recognise the humanity both in himself and the rebel and adopt a more humanist position.
Gandhiji`s application of the Gita`s emphasis on the divinity/humanity in every human to the freedom movement is also what compelled Gandhiji to also give importance to the uplift of Dalits, for example. His emphasis on Dalit uplift was so strong in his activities that many in the Congress party felt that his choice of timing and emphasis on Dalit upliftment created a distraction from what they considered had precedence as the primary goal, namely ending British rule.
Think about it, here is an answer to dost-mittar`s or perhaps nasahji`s question on another board about why Gandhiji said the Gita inspired his nonviolent satyagraha.
The fundamental premise propounded by the Gita is the Truth that there is divinity/humanity in every human and a person`s own divinity/humanity is manifested through his realisation of this Truth.
If one accepts this fundamental premise of the Gita, then an arbitrary Indian subject who perpetuated violence against or killed an arbitrary Britisher was not only denying the humanity/divinity in the Britisher by his violent acts but was also diminishing his own humanity/divinity through these acts.
A nonviolent satyagraha is a way to put across rebellion which neither negates nor diminishes the humanity of either the rebel or of the object of rebellion. It forces the rebel to conceptualize his rebellion in the broadest and more universal humanist terms and through the methods it adopts ( including putting forth sound principle for the mobilisation of public opinion, civil disobedience, mass meetings, fasting ) it attempts to force the object of rebellion to better recognise the humanity both in himself and the rebel and adopt a more humanist position.
Gandhiji`s application of the Gita`s emphasis on the divinity/humanity in every human to the freedom movement is also what compelled Gandhiji to also give importance to the uplift of Dalits, for example. His emphasis on Dalit uplift was so strong in his activities that many in the Congress party felt that his choice of timing and emphasis on Dalit upliftment created a distraction from what they considered had precedence as the primary goal, namely ending British rule.
#45 Posted by snow on November 12, 2002 7:22:13 am
Stuka, Sadna, Dost-Mittar etc.
The Geeta sounds like a great learning book. To echo Harpreet`s question, is there any particular publication thats better ?
Obrigado.
The Geeta sounds like a great learning book. To echo Harpreet`s question, is there any particular publication thats better ?
Obrigado.
#44 Posted by jay on November 12, 2002 6:42:00 am
Sameer 37,
The after thought part of the gita could be literally true. It is widely believed that Sankaracharya inserted the gita into the mahabharata. According to aurobindo, there is no reference to gita in any of the hindu works before sankaracharya. It is he who popularised it and it is believed that he inserted it there. Aurobindo discusses this aspect and leaves it with out any conclusions.
Sadna,
There is no concept in gita of non-violence, killing/ murder what ever you call it is not banned in any way. It is left to the karma and and the conciousness of the person to decide what is appropriate.
The after thought part of the gita could be literally true. It is widely believed that Sankaracharya inserted the gita into the mahabharata. According to aurobindo, there is no reference to gita in any of the hindu works before sankaracharya. It is he who popularised it and it is believed that he inserted it there. Aurobindo discusses this aspect and leaves it with out any conclusions.
Sadna,
There is no concept in gita of non-violence, killing/ murder what ever you call it is not banned in any way. It is left to the karma and and the conciousness of the person to decide what is appropriate.
#43 Posted by Urstruly on November 12, 2002 6:41:59 am
Pankaj # 32
Excellent post. This is what I call a fine balance between objectivity and relativity. You have seen through the fallacy in dost`s argument. I think no matter what position we take we are bound to look into things in terms of ``good`` and ``evil``. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. For example, in simple words, here is what Ajeet and Stuka are proposing in not so many words:
- Geeta is a source of moral code.
- Since Gandhi acted upon what Geeta dictates, therefore, he must be right.
- And since Godse acted upon what Geeta dictates, therefore, he must also be right.
This is a typical argument of the religious extremist who believes that an evil can be done for a ``greater`` good without realizing that the outcome of evil can only be more evil; you sow hawthorn you reap hawthorn. An evil done in the name of greater good is the ultimate evil. Which means that you don’t have moral courage to take a stand on the `right` where sometimes you might have to retract from what `you` think is right and give way to what is right in the moral code. This needs courage. So this suggests one of the two things:
- Either your moral code is irrelevant in this situation
- Or you have wrongly attached `all good` to your source of moral code.
Conversely, read through some of the other set of replies, and you will also see the line of argument such is this:
- Geeta is a source of `amoral` code.
- Since Gandhi acted upon what Geeta dictates, therefore, he must be wrong.
- And since Godse acted upon what Geeta dictates, therefore, he must also be wrong.
This is a typical argument that anti-religionists, perverts, anti-Muslim Hindu religious nuts on their websites, and twats like hamidm, sameerjb and saminashah use i.e. whole religion is bad no matter what. And why? Because if they don’t use the `the whole religion is bad` line of in-argument they are stuck with two choices:
- Use a fallacious argument like what Dost Mitter has put forth in this article.
- Or they have to use an argument, which is objective and relative. And in this case they know very well that they will lose.
And hence they run away from debate like a dog runs away from a piece of rock, saying that `arguing with a religionist is like arguing with a Nazi about the benefits and efficiency of gas chambers`.
#42 Posted by stuka on November 12, 2002 6:41:59 am
Sadna, PMishra:
Please read a book called The Men who killed Gandhi by Manohar Moolgavkar.
He has done a lot of detailed research into the motivations of all the people involved, from Savarkar to Apte as well as Godse. The plan to assasinate Gandhi was not made spur of the moment. It was not done to affect future policy. It was not meant to terrorize the population.
Nathuram Godse`s equal would be Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, the Sikhs who assasinated Indira Gandhi. They did not do so for selfish reasons, they did not do so to change future policy or to terrorize people at large. It was done with a sense of duty.
Please read a book called The Men who killed Gandhi by Manohar Moolgavkar.
He has done a lot of detailed research into the motivations of all the people involved, from Savarkar to Apte as well as Godse. The plan to assasinate Gandhi was not made spur of the moment. It was not done to affect future policy. It was not meant to terrorize the population.
Nathuram Godse`s equal would be Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, the Sikhs who assasinated Indira Gandhi. They did not do so for selfish reasons, they did not do so to change future policy or to terrorize people at large. It was done with a sense of duty.
#41 Posted by Harpreet on November 12, 2002 6:41:59 am
Dost-Mittar
Congratulations on getting your first article published on Chowk. Can you suggest a translation of Bhagavad Geeta I can get to educate myself?? Which is the best version in your opinion.
-h-
#40 Posted by Sabina on November 11, 2002 11:50:37 pm
Why is Gita so difficult to read?! Am I just stoooopid? Is there a simple introduction to the book? :(
#39 Posted by sadna on November 11, 2002 11:50:37 pm
#38 That (not denying and making every allowance for the humanity of an opponent ) is what distinguishes a warrior from a murderer. This is the reason warriors were bound by codes of war and there is the Geneva Convention.
#38 Posted by Pankaj on November 11, 2002 10:05:05 pm
To clarify the confusion that some people are having due to an inherent logical fallacy in the above article, let me go back to the basics and post the original statements of Geeta,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2
karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana |
maa karmaphalaheturbhuu maatesaN^gotsvakarmaNi || (2:47)
A person has the right towards action alone and not towards the fruit of action. Let not the fruit of action be the motive for acting. Also, Let there not be any attachment to inaction.
Chapter 3- Karma-Yoga
na hi kascit ksanam api ,jatu tisthaty akarma-krt
karyate hy avasah karma ,sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih (3:05)
Translation: All men are forced to act helplessly according to the impulses born of the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.
niyatam kuru karma tvam ,karma jyayo hy akarmanah
sarira-yatrapi ca te ,na prasiddhyed akarmanah (3:08)
Translation: Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. A man cannot even maintain his physical body without work.
---------------------------------------------------
I looked at the other verses too on Karma in Geeta too. Nowhere it says that everyone should do what he thinks ``right``. The words like ``prescribed duty`` etc clearly point out towards a reference frame(dharma) that defines what is ``prescribed``.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2
karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana |
maa karmaphalaheturbhuu maatesaN^gotsvakarmaNi || (2:47)
A person has the right towards action alone and not towards the fruit of action. Let not the fruit of action be the motive for acting. Also, Let there not be any attachment to inaction.
Chapter 3- Karma-Yoga
na hi kascit ksanam api ,jatu tisthaty akarma-krt
karyate hy avasah karma ,sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih (3:05)
Translation: All men are forced to act helplessly according to the impulses born of the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.
niyatam kuru karma tvam ,karma jyayo hy akarmanah
sarira-yatrapi ca te ,na prasiddhyed akarmanah (3:08)
Translation: Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. A man cannot even maintain his physical body without work.
---------------------------------------------------
I looked at the other verses too on Karma in Geeta too. Nowhere it says that everyone should do what he thinks ``right``. The words like ``prescribed duty`` etc clearly point out towards a reference frame(dharma) that defines what is ``prescribed``.
#37 Posted by JS on November 11, 2002 10:05:05 pm
In response to writer`s innocent probe--``...should holy scriptures play a role in morality?``----Scriptures are neither holy nor moral.It may be termed as ``Amoral``,if one cannot downright say it ``Immoral``,in the strict dilactical sense.
#36 Posted by SameerJB on November 11, 2002 10:05:05 pm
dost-mittar: Sorry for being late on the scene since I did not know Nand Tandan is your real name. I think you have touched about two interesting issues here. One, as you mentioned is about the role of holy scriptures in morality and the other is the importance of after thoughts. I was told about Bhagawad Gita as after thought many years back but for believers it is not acceptable. In many ways it is hisyory book and marketing as a just cause following victory. History is full of examples of after thoughts such as justification of dropping atomic bombs on Japan and Musharraf overthrowing civilian government. Some time ago, I also had a discussion about Waris Shah explaining each character of Heer story in terms of Sufi maarfat at the end of his poetry. They were certainly after thoughts. After thoughts are like open book or take home exams/ assignment where all related material can be freely utilized.
All scriptures contain after thought parts but for believers, they sound remarkably true predictions because they do not believe them to be added after the event with outcome already known.
If Gita is reas as after thought trying to put positive spin or Quran trying to put positive spins on holy wars, basically mean explanation and not guideline or blueprint for future events. Therefore morality beyond the original event is not to be based on a postscript. It is individual responsibility to be moral acccording to the moral standards of the time and scriptures can be used as a mean of conentrating on right thoughts, not an end.
Yeh ghata jo uthee, pyas sub kee bujhi
aashyaN pe kisi ke gireN bijliaN to yeh ghata kya kare
Chingari koi bhaRke
All scriptures contain after thought parts but for believers, they sound remarkably true predictions because they do not believe them to be added after the event with outcome already known.
If Gita is reas as after thought trying to put positive spin or Quran trying to put positive spins on holy wars, basically mean explanation and not guideline or blueprint for future events. Therefore morality beyond the original event is not to be based on a postscript. It is individual responsibility to be moral acccording to the moral standards of the time and scriptures can be used as a mean of conentrating on right thoughts, not an end.
Yeh ghata jo uthee, pyas sub kee bujhi
aashyaN pe kisi ke gireN bijliaN to yeh ghata kya kare
Chingari koi bhaRke
#35 Posted by sadna on November 11, 2002 10:05:05 pm
dost-mittar #34
If you drawing parallels of the moral sense of Godse with the moral sense of Krishna, the analogy breaks down even further. Do you want to go into that? Rama`s killing of Vali from behind is the closest where such a killing is carried out by a `role model` and even Vali reprimanded Rama for it.
Bowing down to greet Gandhiji could well have been a deceitful artifice to assist Godse in his aim, not a sign of respect.
Like all assassins, by his act and his method, Godse was denying the essential humanity in his victim. Thats what distinguishes a warrior from a murderer. This is the reason warriors were bound by codes of war and there is the Geneva Convention.
The fundamental moral message of the Gita is not only to realise the humanity in all humans but the divinity in all creation. It goes against everything in the Gita to deny the humanity in another like an assassin or murderer does. The fact that the victim was Gandhiji of all people in my view made the moral infringement even worse.
If you drawing parallels of the moral sense of Godse with the moral sense of Krishna, the analogy breaks down even further. Do you want to go into that? Rama`s killing of Vali from behind is the closest where such a killing is carried out by a `role model` and even Vali reprimanded Rama for it.
Bowing down to greet Gandhiji could well have been a deceitful artifice to assist Godse in his aim, not a sign of respect.
Like all assassins, by his act and his method, Godse was denying the essential humanity in his victim. Thats what distinguishes a warrior from a murderer. This is the reason warriors were bound by codes of war and there is the Geneva Convention.
The fundamental moral message of the Gita is not only to realise the humanity in all humans but the divinity in all creation. It goes against everything in the Gita to deny the humanity in another like an assassin or murderer does. The fact that the victim was Gandhiji of all people in my view made the moral infringement even worse.
#34 Posted by MastRam2 on November 11, 2002 7:28:26 pm
Dost-mitterji
Humans have an infinite capacity for rationalization and religion is often the tool of choice in making ourselves justify some actions which are morally indefensible otherwise. Religion can even make some of us forget the biological imperative of self-preservation. It is not surprising at all that Godse uses Gita to justify his actions to himself. I won`t be surprised if the band of cow-saviours in Jhajjar sleep peacefully at night believing that they have done their dharma by killing five humans.
Humans have an infinite capacity for rationalization and religion is often the tool of choice in making ourselves justify some actions which are morally indefensible otherwise. Religion can even make some of us forget the biological imperative of self-preservation. It is not surprising at all that Godse uses Gita to justify his actions to himself. I won`t be surprised if the band of cow-saviours in Jhajjar sleep peacefully at night believing that they have done their dharma by killing five humans.
#32 Posted by pmishra2 on November 11, 2002 7:28:25 pm
dost-mittar #25
And my point is: did Godse employ the methodology employed in the Gita to arrive at his conclusions? As I argued earlier these seem to include dialog, listing of choices, thinking through of consequences of ones actions so as to arrive at a notion of svadharma. I see no evidence of that.
And my point is: did Godse employ the methodology employed in the Gita to arrive at his conclusions? As I argued earlier these seem to include dialog, listing of choices, thinking through of consequences of ones actions so as to arrive at a notion of svadharma. I see no evidence of that.
#31 Posted by Ajeet on November 11, 2002 7:28:25 pm
Sadna,
It is beside the point whether Godse was right or wrong, or whether he followed the message a hundred percent. Godse if he was taking his inspiration from Geeta, was interpreting it the way he saw it.
Besides, after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, all people who did not agree with some of Gandhi`s action were painted black with a large brush. Godse was a maratha and as such did not suffer from the consequences of the partition, however a lot of punjabis who had to come to India after losing everything would have liked to kill Gandhi and felt justified about. I am writing this because I saw with how much passion my grandfather hated him.
It is beside the point whether Godse was right or wrong, or whether he followed the message a hundred percent. Godse if he was taking his inspiration from Geeta, was interpreting it the way he saw it.
Besides, after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, all people who did not agree with some of Gandhi`s action were painted black with a large brush. Godse was a maratha and as such did not suffer from the consequences of the partition, however a lot of punjabis who had to come to India after losing everything would have liked to kill Gandhi and felt justified about. I am writing this because I saw with how much passion my grandfather hated him.
#30 Posted by Banjaara on November 11, 2002 7:28:25 pm
dost-mittar ji,
tau ye aap they? maafi ka talabgar huN, lekin mera andaza sahi nikla.
Literal translation: nowhere to go away,nor a place to stay. or in simple english : catch-22.
tau ye aap they? maafi ka talabgar huN, lekin mera andaza sahi nikla.
Literal translation: nowhere to go away,nor a place to stay. or in simple english : catch-22.
#29 Posted by Ajeet on November 11, 2002 7:28:25 pm
Urstruly #15.
The idea is that some time people do things which would normally be considered evil, but they feel they have a justification for doing that evil for greated good or higher calling.
One example could be the concept of honor killings in your country. It is a murder but is refered to as an honor. The killers in this case place a higher value on the family`s izzat than the right to life of a family member.
The idea is that some time people do things which would normally be considered evil, but they feel they have a justification for doing that evil for greated good or higher calling.
One example could be the concept of honor killings in your country. It is a murder but is refered to as an honor. The killers in this case place a higher value on the family`s izzat than the right to life of a family member.
#28 Posted by Pankaj on November 11, 2002 7:28:25 pm
Dost-Mittar
I dont get whatsoever moral dilemma you tried to present. The Geeta says that one must carry out his Karma not according to what he thinks right but according to Dharma. Thus it establishes an absolute frame of reference based on which ``right`` can be distinguished from ``wrong``. Without this clearcut understanding of Geeta, one may be mislead into thinking Hitler or Neanderthal Modi were right since they can also claim that they did whatever they thought ``right``. The catch is not what they believe to be ``right`` but whether it is in accordance with Dharma. This is the logical fallacy of ``relativism`` in your article.
Now at the next level the question is what constitutes this body of laws called Dharma that would determine the ``rightness`` of an act. The Dharma, loosely speaking, is a code of ethics incorporating values like honesty,truth, non-violence etc. One of the inscriptions on Ashoka`s rock edict actually defines Dharma in these terms which I can post after some google search if you want. Now we would have to ask whether it is Dharmic to shoot a person who has differing views than you. Did Gandhi go about murdering people who disagreed with him? Why couldn`t Godse have started his own revolution based on followers of his ideology and compete against Gandhi. Gandhi presented his ideas before the people and people followed him of their own volition. If it is not Dharmic to murder a person because of ideological dissent then the act of Godse was un-Dharmic though he might have thought it ``right``. Thus there is no moral dilemma presented by Geeta as far as I can see. The confusion arises because of logical fallacy in the argument and confusing everyone`s conception of ``right`` with the Dharma.
PS
Bheesham and Bheeshma, I am not sure but I think that North Indians generally spell it in the former way and South Indians in the latter way``
I think Banjara is right in this case. The correct Sanskrit spelling is Bheeshma and North Indians, in general, spell it this way and not the other way. Basically Hindi and Sanskrit have a lot of half consonants that are not present in urdu and perhaps Gurmukhee.
I dont get whatsoever moral dilemma you tried to present. The Geeta says that one must carry out his Karma not according to what he thinks right but according to Dharma. Thus it establishes an absolute frame of reference based on which ``right`` can be distinguished from ``wrong``. Without this clearcut understanding of Geeta, one may be mislead into thinking Hitler or Neanderthal Modi were right since they can also claim that they did whatever they thought ``right``. The catch is not what they believe to be ``right`` but whether it is in accordance with Dharma. This is the logical fallacy of ``relativism`` in your article.
Now at the next level the question is what constitutes this body of laws called Dharma that would determine the ``rightness`` of an act. The Dharma, loosely speaking, is a code of ethics incorporating values like honesty,truth, non-violence etc. One of the inscriptions on Ashoka`s rock edict actually defines Dharma in these terms which I can post after some google search if you want. Now we would have to ask whether it is Dharmic to shoot a person who has differing views than you. Did Gandhi go about murdering people who disagreed with him? Why couldn`t Godse have started his own revolution based on followers of his ideology and compete against Gandhi. Gandhi presented his ideas before the people and people followed him of their own volition. If it is not Dharmic to murder a person because of ideological dissent then the act of Godse was un-Dharmic though he might have thought it ``right``. Thus there is no moral dilemma presented by Geeta as far as I can see. The confusion arises because of logical fallacy in the argument and confusing everyone`s conception of ``right`` with the Dharma.
PS
Bheesham and Bheeshma, I am not sure but I think that North Indians generally spell it in the former way and South Indians in the latter way``
I think Banjara is right in this case. The correct Sanskrit spelling is Bheeshma and North Indians, in general, spell it this way and not the other way. Basically Hindi and Sanskrit have a lot of half consonants that are not present in urdu and perhaps Gurmukhee.
#27 Posted by nasah on November 11, 2002 1:27:44 pm
my dear dost mitter ji -- I had an inkling somehow or other I was responsible:-) --
`half-seriously`? -- then we are even:-)
`half-seriously`? -- then we are even:-)
#26 Posted by sadna on November 11, 2002 1:27:29 pm
dost-mittar #25
I am not sure how I guessed, but I`m sorry I prempted you by posting it.
If I may ask, what are your references to statements about Godse?
btw, I meant`` the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers``
dost-mittar I am not comfortable with the analogy from the Mahabharata. Like Arjuna killed Bhishma Godse killed Gandhiji joylessly and out of a sense of pure duty.
This analogy doesnot work. In the Mahabharata, knowing well the horrific consequences of violence, repeated attempts were made to reach a peaceful settlement and avoid war. When war was finally declared, the enemy was given a chance to mobilise and bear arms, Arjuna didnot fight unarmed enemies. Inspite of knowing all other means to avoid violence had failed, Arjuna was reluctant to kill his elders including Bhishma and when war inevitably led to his defeating Bhishma on the battlefield he tried to atone by making sure Bhishma died a relatively comfortable death.
Unlike Arjuna, Godse seems to have chosen the path of violence straightaway. Did Godse ever try to approach Gandhiji and try to persuade him to change his views or actions about whatever Godse objected to? No. Did Godse ever try any other peaceful form of advocacy or resistance open to a civilised person ?. Did Godse ever issue a formal declaration of hostilities letting Gandhi at least know that such an adversary existed and for what reason? No. Gandhi first met his assassin when he was dying and never knew why he was killed. Thats Godse`s out and out moral cowardice not duty.
btw the Gita says
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-24.html
18:25 Action which is begun out of illusion without considering consequence, destruction, violence and ones own ability to fulfil is called [tamasic] (ignorant in tendency).
Seems to fit Godse to a t.
I am not sure how I guessed, but I`m sorry I prempted you by posting it.
If I may ask, what are your references to statements about Godse?
btw, I meant`` the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers``
dost-mittar I am not comfortable with the analogy from the Mahabharata. Like Arjuna killed Bhishma Godse killed Gandhiji joylessly and out of a sense of pure duty.
This analogy doesnot work. In the Mahabharata, knowing well the horrific consequences of violence, repeated attempts were made to reach a peaceful settlement and avoid war. When war was finally declared, the enemy was given a chance to mobilise and bear arms, Arjuna didnot fight unarmed enemies. Inspite of knowing all other means to avoid violence had failed, Arjuna was reluctant to kill his elders including Bhishma and when war inevitably led to his defeating Bhishma on the battlefield he tried to atone by making sure Bhishma died a relatively comfortable death.
Unlike Arjuna, Godse seems to have chosen the path of violence straightaway. Did Godse ever try to approach Gandhiji and try to persuade him to change his views or actions about whatever Godse objected to? No. Did Godse ever try any other peaceful form of advocacy or resistance open to a civilised person ?. Did Godse ever issue a formal declaration of hostilities letting Gandhi at least know that such an adversary existed and for what reason? No. Gandhi first met his assassin when he was dying and never knew why he was killed. Thats Godse`s out and out moral cowardice not duty.
btw the Gita says
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-24.html
18:25 Action which is begun out of illusion without considering consequence, destruction, violence and ones own ability to fulfil is called [tamasic] (ignorant in tendency).
Seems to fit Godse to a t.
#24 Posted by MastRam2 on November 11, 2002 11:18:27 am
re sadna #19
Furthermore, Yudhishtir gave up his claim on Hastinapur throne and founded a new kingdom in Indraprastha. Even that was taken away from pandavas for 13 years by deceit. They decided to fight a war after Duryodhana refused to return Indraprastha or even five villages after the 13 years were over.
Furthermore, Yudhishtir gave up his claim on Hastinapur throne and founded a new kingdom in Indraprastha. Even that was taken away from pandavas for 13 years by deceit. They decided to fight a war after Duryodhana refused to return Indraprastha or even five villages after the 13 years were over.
#23 Posted by stuka on November 11, 2002 11:18:27 am
Urstruly:
``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``
First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``
Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``
You miss the point in the opening statement. The Panadavas were right because they acted on the moral code of the Gita. However, Bhishmapitamah was also correct because he acted on a similar moral code of Karma and Dharma, though he was on the opposite side. If you look at the wider aspect of Mahabharata, mano on the side of the Kauravas are not painted as evil because they are obligated in doing their duty. Examples are Dronacharya, Bheeshma and most of all Karna, the eldest Pandava who fights out of loyalty to Duryodhan though his moral character is different. His loyalty to Duryodhana is not questioned or depicted as evil.
In a similar sense, Gandhi acted correctly as he was following his dharma. So was Godse, who acted on principle and not on the basis of selfish gain.
``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``
First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``
Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``
You miss the point in the opening statement. The Panadavas were right because they acted on the moral code of the Gita. However, Bhishmapitamah was also correct because he acted on a similar moral code of Karma and Dharma, though he was on the opposite side. If you look at the wider aspect of Mahabharata, mano on the side of the Kauravas are not painted as evil because they are obligated in doing their duty. Examples are Dronacharya, Bheeshma and most of all Karna, the eldest Pandava who fights out of loyalty to Duryodhan though his moral character is different. His loyalty to Duryodhana is not questioned or depicted as evil.
In a similar sense, Gandhi acted correctly as he was following his dharma. So was Godse, who acted on principle and not on the basis of selfish gain.
#21 Posted by pmishra2 on November 11, 2002 11:18:27 am
The most important part of the Gita is of course that it takes the form of dialog and arguments that took place between Krishna and Arjuna. There was some notion of debate, of coming to an understanding of the consequences of ones action, of determining one`s svadharma.
Can you seriously affirm this was the case for Godse`s actions? If so, what were these arguments? What were Godse`s goals? How did his actions further them?
Godse`s actions are reflected in some other aspects of Mahabharata. I refer here to the revenge killings that took place between the K`s and P`s. And all that came out of them was the deepest suffering and loss. This is made explicit in statements by Arjun and Yudhistira after their victory. So what does this context suggest about Godse?
Can you seriously affirm this was the case for Godse`s actions? If so, what were these arguments? What were Godse`s goals? How did his actions further them?
Godse`s actions are reflected in some other aspects of Mahabharata. I refer here to the revenge killings that took place between the K`s and P`s. And all that came out of them was the deepest suffering and loss. This is made explicit in statements by Arjun and Yudhistira after their victory. So what does this context suggest about Godse?
#20 Posted by sadna on November 11, 2002 9:08:37 am
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.
Your remark re the villiany of the Kauravas is also not accurate. Its not the claim of the Kauravas on the kingdom which makes them villianous, there was a lot of villiany quite apart from this.
#19 Posted by khurram on November 11, 2002 9:08:37 am
Godse was not a warrior. He was a cold-blooded murderer.
#18 Posted by nasah on November 11, 2002 8:26:38 am
``There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi...``
ah a joyless assassination!
my sympathies for poor Mahatma Godse.
ah a joyless assassination!
my sympathies for poor Mahatma Godse.
#17 Posted by Urstruly on November 11, 2002 8:26:37 am
Stuka
``The author`s interpretation of Gandhi and Godse is therefore closer to the essence of the Gita. ``
No No No.........how could you deduce that. Even this statement of yours contradict your first paragraph. Let me give you an example how:
Suppose there is a professor of dentistry teaching his class and showing slides to his student. He begines his class by making this statement
OPENING STATEMENT: ``Toothpaste is good for dental health and lack of its use causes dental Health problems``
Next he shows a slide of healthy teeth and makes this statement:
FIRST STATEMENT: ``Regular use of toothpaste has resulted in healthy teeth``
This statement coincides with with his original premise.
Next he shows another slide of decayed teeth and makes this statement:
SECOND STATEMENT: ``Regular use of tooth paste has resulted in decayed teeth``
This statement is inconsistent with his opening statement. When a student points out to this error the professor insists that he is correct. So if you are an independent observer you may deduce one of the following:
- Opening statement, and first statement are correct but second statement is incorrect.
- Second statement is correct and that results in opening statement and first statement being incorrect.
- First and second statement are correct and therefore opening statement must be irrelevant.
The author of this article uses the third case logic and fallaciously insists that opening statement is not irrelevant. Authors opening statement is:
``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``
First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``
Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``
So if we apply the toothpaste anonolgy here the Gita becomes irrelevant if we assume that first and second statement are correct..................is anyone reading this? helllo is someone out there?
``The author`s interpretation of Gandhi and Godse is therefore closer to the essence of the Gita. ``
No No No.........how could you deduce that. Even this statement of yours contradict your first paragraph. Let me give you an example how:
Suppose there is a professor of dentistry teaching his class and showing slides to his student. He begines his class by making this statement
OPENING STATEMENT: ``Toothpaste is good for dental health and lack of its use causes dental Health problems``
Next he shows a slide of healthy teeth and makes this statement:
FIRST STATEMENT: ``Regular use of toothpaste has resulted in healthy teeth``
This statement coincides with with his original premise.
Next he shows another slide of decayed teeth and makes this statement:
SECOND STATEMENT: ``Regular use of tooth paste has resulted in decayed teeth``
This statement is inconsistent with his opening statement. When a student points out to this error the professor insists that he is correct. So if you are an independent observer you may deduce one of the following:
- Opening statement, and first statement are correct but second statement is incorrect.
- Second statement is correct and that results in opening statement and first statement being incorrect.
- First and second statement are correct and therefore opening statement must be irrelevant.
The author of this article uses the third case logic and fallaciously insists that opening statement is not irrelevant. Authors opening statement is:
``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``
First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``
Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``
So if we apply the toothpaste anonolgy here the Gita becomes irrelevant if we assume that first and second statement are correct..................is anyone reading this? helllo is someone out there?
#16 Posted by nasah on November 11, 2002 8:26:37 am
I must confess that sometimes -- there are moments of altered states of my mind -- when I end up writing Pure Trash on Chowk --
what I didn`t know is --that it can happen to some of my best friends as well.....
what I didn`t know is --that it can happen to some of my best friends as well.....
#15 Posted by Urstruly on November 11, 2002 8:26:37 am
Sadna
``. Another is if a person reads the Mahabharata in a single sitting, he will lose his sanity``
A couple of episodes that I watched on TV did that to me. However, I must admit that I have hots for the chick who played the role of Subudra, Lord Krishan`s sister. She can definitely cause strife in a family, if you know what I mean :)
#14 Posted by sadna on November 11, 2002 7:35:11 am
dost-mittarji
Welcome ! Its always nice to know chowkwallahs real names :).
Thanks for a thought provoking article. IMO such a topic requires experts to credibly tackle the huge scope of the subject matter and do it full justice.
My 1-paisas` worth on the questions you raised in the end:
``should holy scriptures play a role in morality``
If you mean the Geeta, IMO it depends on individual inclination. In my humble opinion, a person`s morality is his own responsibility and holy scripture can at the most be a guide, a reference or a corroboration (or a negation as the case may be) :).
If by holy scriptures, you mean the Mahabharata, well there are strong traditional advisories against doing so. One such warning adage is that no copy of Mahabharata should be kept in the house, as it will cause strife in the family. Another is if a person reads the Mahabharata in a single sitting, he will lose his sanity. The main reason as I understand it is, that the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers. Its storyline and characterisations are such that there are , no simple and moral certainities illustrated, no simple and clear cut role models, in other words, very grudging relief offered to the reader as to unambiguous affirmation of principle.
``So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both?``
Gandhi was a great man who did a lot better than us ordinary joes, IMO, inspite of and given his faults.
I am not acquainted with Godse`s thinking, but I don`t think he was being true to the Geeta. For one, he didnot use his head very much, it seems, about what he was trying to accomplish by killing Gandhiji. Correct me if I am wrong but Gandhiji was at the time almost 80, and already detached from public life and the hustle bustle of a new country`s governance. At such a time, the assassination of Gandhi only led to a public backlash against those whom Godse had ideological sympathy with, that people held it up as a reason to keep them at arm`s length and consequently Gandhi`s (and their opponent Nehru`s) agenda only got strengthened not weakened.
Incidentally, something I`ve been wanting to point out wrt the Mahabharata war and Krishna`s role in it is that Krishna was cousin to both the Kauravas and to the Pandavas, so he didnot wish to either take up arms personally nor take sides. So he offered that he himself would join one side as an unarmed noncombatant and his army would fight on the opposite side to balance things out.
Arjuna chose Krishna as noncombatant to be on his own side(and Krishna served as his charioteer) and Duryodhana was equally happy to have Krishna`s Yadava army assigned to fight on the Kaurava side.
Krishna`s elder brother Balram displayed yet another degree of detachment, he was so angry and disgusted with the whole idea of war between the cousins that he refused to have anything to do with it and went off on a long journey.
The contrast between Krishna`s and Balram`s courses of action is a simple example of the sort of question the Mahabharata raises but doesnot answer. Which is, given a conflict among those whom you love, is it helpful or harmful to stay put and try to see justice done or is it best to stay away and wash ones hands of it.
Welcome ! Its always nice to know chowkwallahs real names :).
Thanks for a thought provoking article. IMO such a topic requires experts to credibly tackle the huge scope of the subject matter and do it full justice.
My 1-paisas` worth on the questions you raised in the end:
``should holy scriptures play a role in morality``
If you mean the Geeta, IMO it depends on individual inclination. In my humble opinion, a person`s morality is his own responsibility and holy scripture can at the most be a guide, a reference or a corroboration (or a negation as the case may be) :).
If by holy scriptures, you mean the Mahabharata, well there are strong traditional advisories against doing so. One such warning adage is that no copy of Mahabharata should be kept in the house, as it will cause strife in the family. Another is if a person reads the Mahabharata in a single sitting, he will lose his sanity. The main reason as I understand it is, that the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers. Its storyline and characterisations are such that there are , no simple and moral certainities illustrated, no simple and clear cut role models, in other words, very grudging relief offered to the reader as to unambiguous affirmation of principle.
``So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both?``
Gandhi was a great man who did a lot better than us ordinary joes, IMO, inspite of and given his faults.
I am not acquainted with Godse`s thinking, but I don`t think he was being true to the Geeta. For one, he didnot use his head very much, it seems, about what he was trying to accomplish by killing Gandhiji. Correct me if I am wrong but Gandhiji was at the time almost 80, and already detached from public life and the hustle bustle of a new country`s governance. At such a time, the assassination of Gandhi only led to a public backlash against those whom Godse had ideological sympathy with, that people held it up as a reason to keep them at arm`s length and consequently Gandhi`s (and their opponent Nehru`s) agenda only got strengthened not weakened.
Incidentally, something I`ve been wanting to point out wrt the Mahabharata war and Krishna`s role in it is that Krishna was cousin to both the Kauravas and to the Pandavas, so he didnot wish to either take up arms personally nor take sides. So he offered that he himself would join one side as an unarmed noncombatant and his army would fight on the opposite side to balance things out.
Arjuna chose Krishna as noncombatant to be on his own side(and Krishna served as his charioteer) and Duryodhana was equally happy to have Krishna`s Yadava army assigned to fight on the Kaurava side.
Krishna`s elder brother Balram displayed yet another degree of detachment, he was so angry and disgusted with the whole idea of war between the cousins that he refused to have anything to do with it and went off on a long journey.
The contrast between Krishna`s and Balram`s courses of action is a simple example of the sort of question the Mahabharata raises but doesnot answer. Which is, given a conflict among those whom you love, is it helpful or harmful to stay put and try to see justice done or is it best to stay away and wash ones hands of it.
#13 Posted by jay on November 11, 2002 7:34:59 am
Nand,
The central element of the advice in geeta relates the attitude with which a task is to be performed, it should be in a detached , disinterested manner with out any sense of ego, beyond the notion of good and bad, in a trascendaental manner. Most of the main charectors like drona, bheshma etc knew the outcome of the war and who would kill them, still they fought like hell in the purest sense of ones duty. The war stopped at dusk and the two enemies discussed matters as friend only to resume the fight early in the morning, that was thir task, there was no animosity.
This is in sharp contrast to the notion of jihad where the promise of heaven leads to war in an ultimate display of greed and haterd as evidenced by the mutilation of bodies in kargill invasion.
In terms of the purity of intentions, may be gandhi and godse are comparable. Contribution of godse to the enduring legacy of gandhi is not insignificant. He terminated the life of a great soul at its peak, delivering the ultimate test to the greatness of a man who died with the name of god on his lips as gandhi himself fpretold....
...`` ...If I die with an assasins bullet with out the name of god on my lips, you can be sure that I was not a mahatma...``
Godse is critical to the greatness of gandhi, part of the scheme of things, and with out some kind of influence of gita on godses part, the greatness of gandhi would have been diminished....
The time and the manner one dies adds pognancey to the entire life...John F kennady today .....he would have been draged through the courts...
The central element of the advice in geeta relates the attitude with which a task is to be performed, it should be in a detached , disinterested manner with out any sense of ego, beyond the notion of good and bad, in a trascendaental manner. Most of the main charectors like drona, bheshma etc knew the outcome of the war and who would kill them, still they fought like hell in the purest sense of ones duty. The war stopped at dusk and the two enemies discussed matters as friend only to resume the fight early in the morning, that was thir task, there was no animosity.
This is in sharp contrast to the notion of jihad where the promise of heaven leads to war in an ultimate display of greed and haterd as evidenced by the mutilation of bodies in kargill invasion.
In terms of the purity of intentions, may be gandhi and godse are comparable. Contribution of godse to the enduring legacy of gandhi is not insignificant. He terminated the life of a great soul at its peak, delivering the ultimate test to the greatness of a man who died with the name of god on his lips as gandhi himself fpretold....
...`` ...If I die with an assasins bullet with out the name of god on my lips, you can be sure that I was not a mahatma...``
Godse is critical to the greatness of gandhi, part of the scheme of things, and with out some kind of influence of gita on godses part, the greatness of gandhi would have been diminished....
The time and the manner one dies adds pognancey to the entire life...John F kennady today .....he would have been draged through the courts...
#12 Posted by veeresh on November 11, 2002 7:34:59 am
RSaxena . . . I thought we could discuss everything at chowk, so why are you being so diffident about matters?
Getting back to the question, I would think that both Gandhi and Godse, amongst many others, were following the inner call of their respective consciences. Whether these consciences were overtaken by reading scriptures, philosophies or whether these consciences were stuck between ego and angst is something that many can find out if they read Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Or Joseph Heller. Or study histories of lifetimes of people they know intimately, not histories written by others of periods past.
Good article on chowk.com, asks a question many of us in India ask ourselves as we compare the cells at Yervada versus the cabins at the Aga Khan Palace nearby, in Poona?
#11 Posted by soundmeister on November 11, 2002 7:34:59 am
Urstruly, harimau:
To add a contextual twist to the good vs. evil debate let me propose that in the modern day Hastinapur, India represents the Pandavas and Pakistan the Kauravas :))
Now who`s good and who`s evil? Whatever---- I thought teh article though pretty weak at a fundamental level, made for interesting reading!
To add a contextual twist to the good vs. evil debate let me propose that in the modern day Hastinapur, India represents the Pandavas and Pakistan the Kauravas :))
Now who`s good and who`s evil? Whatever---- I thought teh article though pretty weak at a fundamental level, made for interesting reading!
#10 Posted by ZafarA on November 11, 2002 7:34:59 am
STUKA!!!!!
I am in Delhi (ok, in Palam Vihar, Haryana....) till Dec 21, except for about ten days at the beginning of Dec when I`m in Bombay/Pune. Gimme call on 636 9395. Use the Harayana area code (look it up in book :-)). Talk soon!
I am in Delhi (ok, in Palam Vihar, Haryana....) till Dec 21, except for about ten days at the beginning of Dec when I`m in Bombay/Pune. Gimme call on 636 9395. Use the Harayana area code (look it up in book :-)). Talk soon!
#9 Posted by einsteinwallah on November 11, 2002 7:34:58 am
++
Godse believed that Gandhi was responsible for the vivisection of his beloved motherland, had betrayed the Hindu nation and was the cause of the loss of life and honour of millions. Therefore, he deserved to die. There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi, he was just fulfilling what he believed to be his dharma. In his mind, he was following the same course of action that Krishna had asked Arjun to follow in the Geeta. Having accepted the role of the assassin, he did not let his personal feelings for Gandhi prevent him from carrying out his “dharma”.
So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?
++
Author makes the assumption that he knows that all decisions Gandhi made were made after deep study of Geeta only. This is not true. In his Autibiography he describes a dilemma resolution formula. You can find English translation of his autobiography at: http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?book=bg0001&link=bg&id=1&lang=en. This is the translation by Mahadev Desai they probably have tried to preserve pagination of original print edition. The formula is on pages 49-50.
Apart from vivisection there were issues which became bones of contention between newly created India and Pakistan. Gandhi seemed to be taking side of Pakistan`s side on some of the issues. For example the issue of dividing pre-partition Rupee fund. Gandhi kept on meddling on many issues and his stance appears to be formulated after applying the formula a little overzealously.
-ew
Godse believed that Gandhi was responsible for the vivisection of his beloved motherland, had betrayed the Hindu nation and was the cause of the loss of life and honour of millions. Therefore, he deserved to die. There was no joy in this task for Godse. In killing Gandhi, he was just fulfilling what he believed to be his dharma. In his mind, he was following the same course of action that Krishna had asked Arjun to follow in the Geeta. Having accepted the role of the assassin, he did not let his personal feelings for Gandhi prevent him from carrying out his “dharma”.
So, who was following the message of Geeta in the true sense? Gandhi, Godse or both? If both, should holy scriptures play a role in morality?
++
Author makes the assumption that he knows that all decisions Gandhi made were made after deep study of Geeta only. This is not true. In his Autibiography he describes a dilemma resolution formula. You can find English translation of his autobiography at: http://www.mahatma.org.in/books/showbook.jsp?book=bg0001&link=bg&id=1&lang=en. This is the translation by Mahadev Desai they probably have tried to preserve pagination of original print edition. The formula is on pages 49-50.
Apart from vivisection there were issues which became bones of contention between newly created India and Pakistan. Gandhi seemed to be taking side of Pakistan`s side on some of the issues. For example the issue of dividing pre-partition Rupee fund. Gandhi kept on meddling on many issues and his stance appears to be formulated after applying the formula a little overzealously.
-ew
#8 Posted by stuka on November 11, 2002 7:34:58 am
UrsTruly:
I agree that the author tries to build a case of ``good`` versus ``evil`` in the first case. That is because the Mahabharata itself portrays the ``good`` Pandavas against the ``evil`` Duryodhana. However, Krishna`s discourse is not based on good and evil. It is based on Karma and Dharma. The author does mention correctly that it was Arjun`s decision to be the commander of the Pandava army, and having made that decision, it was his duty to fight. He weakens his hypotheses by giving the background of the Mahabharata, which is missing in the actual discourse to Arjun.
The author`s interpretation of Gandhi and Godse is therefore closer to the essence of the Gita.
Very perceptive on your part though.
I agree that the author tries to build a case of ``good`` versus ``evil`` in the first case. That is because the Mahabharata itself portrays the ``good`` Pandavas against the ``evil`` Duryodhana. However, Krishna`s discourse is not based on good and evil. It is based on Karma and Dharma. The author does mention correctly that it was Arjun`s decision to be the commander of the Pandava army, and having made that decision, it was his duty to fight. He weakens his hypotheses by giving the background of the Mahabharata, which is missing in the actual discourse to Arjun.
The author`s interpretation of Gandhi and Godse is therefore closer to the essence of the Gita.
Very perceptive on your part though.
#7 Posted by harimau on November 10, 2002 9:34:49 pm
[Pandavas have exhausted all peaceful means of obtaining justice from their cousins, the Kauravas, who had refused to return to Pandavas their half of the kingdom. As a last resort, Krishna had himself gone to Kauravas as an ambassador of peace but they not only declined to give Pandavas their legitimate share but also refused Krishna’s suggested compromise of giving Pandavas a token of five villages, even five houses. Pandavas were left with no other choice but to fight for their right or give in to their cousins’ tyranny.]
Does the author claim that the Pandavas were in the right when they claimed a half-share of the kingdom?
Dhritharashtra, elder brother to Pandu, was blind but he was still the king, with Pandu acting as the Regent. The law of primogeniture says that Dhritharashtra was the king and it is only his first son Duryodana who had the right to succeed him. So where do the Pandavas have a right to a half-share in the kingdom? After all, the first-born Rama succeeded his father King Dasharath with Bharath, Lakshman, etc., acting as loyal brothers but not as claimants to any share in the kingdom. It was precisely for this reason that Kaikeyi demanded that her son Bharath should be king knowing that Bharath had no chance otherwise.
I think the entire Mahabharatha story is being wrongly interpreted with Pandavas being the good guys and the Kauravas the baddies. I don`t think the Pandavas collectively had one legal leg to stand on.
Does the author claim that the Pandavas were in the right when they claimed a half-share of the kingdom?
Dhritharashtra, elder brother to Pandu, was blind but he was still the king, with Pandu acting as the Regent. The law of primogeniture says that Dhritharashtra was the king and it is only his first son Duryodana who had the right to succeed him. So where do the Pandavas have a right to a half-share in the kingdom? After all, the first-born Rama succeeded his father King Dasharath with Bharath, Lakshman, etc., acting as loyal brothers but not as claimants to any share in the kingdom. It was precisely for this reason that Kaikeyi demanded that her son Bharath should be king knowing that Bharath had no chance otherwise.
I think the entire Mahabharatha story is being wrongly interpreted with Pandavas being the good guys and the Kauravas the baddies. I don`t think the Pandavas collectively had one legal leg to stand on.
#6 Posted by Urstruly on November 10, 2002 8:12:11 pm
It almost passed as a moral dilema if script was not that week. Had the author used hypothetical characters instead of real ones (Gandhi & Godse) the case would have been stronger. Allow me to elaborate.
The author establishes the base of this dilemma by mentioning the battle between Kurus and Pandvas. That was the fatal mistake. Author builds up a case around the notions of ``good` and ``evil``. And tries to prove that one of the party was ``right` and the other was ``wrong``. Which means that author is capable of differentiating between the notions of good and evil and also he wants his readers to see in those terms. At this time lets assume that either one of kurus or pandwas can be ``good`` or ``evil``, which means that it is author`s own perspective; he may consider kurus as evil or vice versa.
Now we apply this postulate to Gandhi and Godse. Let us first assume that Gandhi is evil, then we can deduce from the limits set out by author that Godse must be good; conversely if we take the position that Godse was evil then Gandhi must be good. Now here lies the contradiction that voids this dilemma. Since in the first part of his hypothesis author establishes that he is capable of differentiating between good and evil but in the second part he wants us to believe that he can`t decide between good and evil. The second part of his hypothesis thus negates the first part. A thing cannot be true and false at the same time. It can either be true or false; and these were the constraints defined by author himself. In this case Geeta becomes irrelevant.
Nice try though.
#5 Posted by tvarad on November 10, 2002 7:35:45 pm
Godse and Co. were p**sed off that Hindus didn`t put up a fight and saw partition as the final humiliation of Hindus by Muslims. They blamed it on Gandhi`s creed of non-violence.
The irony is that if there was one leader who was against partition, it was Gandhi. Nehru, Patel, Jinnah et. al. being politicians at their core, were the ones who ultimately carved up India.
The irony is that if there was one leader who was against partition, it was Gandhi. Nehru, Patel, Jinnah et. al. being politicians at their core, were the ones who ultimately carved up India.
#4 Posted by Banjaara on November 10, 2002 7:17:42 pm
PS to #3
Mr.Tandan,
I apologise for a tasteless query in a tasteless manner.
Mr.Tandan,
I apologise for a tasteless query in a tasteless manner.
#3 Posted by Banjaara on November 10, 2002 4:06:07 pm
You raise intresting question. Na jaay raftan,na paay maNdan, as far as I am concerned. But I might learn from the interactions of others,more knowledgeable in the subject.A little nit-picking: isn`t it Bheeshm rather
than Bheesham...unless you are a Punjabi.
Regards.
than Bheesham...unless you are a Punjabi.
Regards.
#2 Posted by temporal on November 10, 2002 3:22:28 pm
Nand:
what a surprise!...welcome to chowk for now...comments later after i have read this...
rgds,
...t
what a surprise!...welcome to chowk for now...comments later after i have read this...
rgds,
...t
#1 Posted by rsaxena on November 10, 2002 3:22:28 pm
...i wish you had not posted this article on chowk...this is not the place to discuss a topic like this...
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Re: # 20 Dost sahib: “Indians... Uneven Democracy : The
- shankar: #93 Woah...the mullah said he... The Strange Case of
- guru: I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqQJLOpKgRU... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- guru: I do not want... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- RiazHaq: It seems a little... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #89 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- Sinha: Re: # 48 Pakistanis should... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Sinha: Re: # 90 After all... The Strange Case of
