The Six-pointed Star

I am taking a slight detour from the earlier topic on Srirama. I will come back to it in my next post.

We have a star shape seen very commonly around this time of the year. This is commonly called the Star of David. This post is on the symbology behind it.

Now, many if not all religions have some layers of meaning built into their holy books and teachings. However, I am not sure how many of them have retained this knowledge at all, or at least to the extent Sanatana Dharma i.e Hinduism has.

For example, there is a book called The Holy Science. This showcases how similarities between certain concepts given in the Bible and Hinduism's saamkhya (सांख्य​, సాంఖ్య) philosophy. The interesting aspect is, this was written by Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri, the guru of Paramahamsa Yogananda.

Now, I come to what is commonly called the Star of David. Those who read The Da Vinci Code may remember certain aspects of the divine feminine. 

In Hinduism, this has some interesting concepts behind it. 

1. The upward pointing triangle denotes Shiva and the downward pointing one Shakti. The union of these two, produces a six-cornered triangle. This denotes Shanmukha (षन्मुख​, షణ్ముఖ), the six-faced one, also known as Subrahmaya (सुब्रह्मण्य​, సుబ్రహ్మణ్య) or Arumugam/Murugan.
2. Shiva and Shakti are two forces which come together to create this universe. Without their union the universe would not exist. There are two opposites that denote Shiva and Shakti respectively - heat and cold - agni and soma (सोम, సోమ).
3. The upward-facing triangle denotes sacrificial fire (heat). The downward one, the offering/fuel (cool). The union of the sacrificial fire and the offering is the yagnya itself. Thus Subrahmanya is the very sacrifice personified.

The star in this way denotes Subrahmanya or the yagnya or this creation itself, depending on how you wish to see it.

The Depth of Sanatana Dharma - Srirama - Part 2

Continuing from my earlier post, I want to spend some time on the Sanskrit language here. This is especially relevant today in the context of a Muslim professor being appointed to a specific post at Benaras Hindu University. There is a Twitter handle called @TIinexile which is the new handle of a guy who goes by the name True Indology. Paraphrasing what he said, in Sanskrit, the divine and the language are intertwined. Once you take away the divine, the language loses its essence, its beauty. This is a surefire way of killing it.

The depth of Sanatana Dharma, this whole topic, in fact is primarily due to this language. Look at the English language. I am not sure if anyone knows why the alphabets are arranged from A to Z. Sanskrit and its derivative Indian languages have a clear logic. This applies whether it is a North Indian or South Indian language. In fact, possibly South Indian languages have preserved features of Sanskrit better. Definitely, in my personal opinion, a South Indian poojari pronounces mantras much better than a North Indian one. The Hindi version of Sanskrit has to many halants. 

The language is a phonetic language. What we write is what we pronounce and vice versa. The alphabet starts with vowels which form the base sounds. Consonants do not have existence independent of the vowels. As we cross each varga - ka cha Ta ta pa, the sound moves from the back of the mouth to the lips. Thus there is a beauty and logic to the structure. 

The very alphabets are said to have been derived from the sound of Lord Siva's dhamarukam or damroo. 

Sanskrit also has the concept of beejaakSharaam (बीजाक्षरम्, బీజాక్షరము) or "seed letter". I do not have enough knowledge to elaborate on these. Further this is not a topic that must be publicly discussed. The base concept is that sound has power. This is the concept behind mantraas, and why they should not publicly broadcast or spoken. For that matter, one must not even utter these without proper initiation.There is the Sanskrit shloka shared by the PM some time back.

amantram akSharam naasti naasti moolam anauShadham

ayogyo purusho naasti yojakah tatra durlabhah

अमन्त्रम् अक्षरम् नास्ति नास्ति मूलम् अनौषधम् 

अयोग्यो पुरुषो नास्ति योजकः तत्र दुर्लभः

అమంత్రం అక్షరం నాస్తి నాస్తి మూలం అనౌషధం 

అయోగ్యో పురుషో నాస్తి యోజకః తత్ర దుర్లభః 

There is no letter (of the alphabet) that is not a mantra. There is no root that is not medicinal. There is no man (person) that is unworthy. However, it is extremely difficult to find the one that can put them to use.

 

Thus the presence of a lot of hidden meanings in Hindu literature is precisely because of Sanskrit. This is obvious in a way. There is a message that must be conveyed. Unless the medium offers that flexibility it is not possible for the message to have multiple meanings. 

Now, in any language there may be words with multiple meanings (if I remember what an old Guinness Book of World Records said, the word "set" in English has the maximum meanings). There are also multiple words to convey the same meaning (synonyms basically, fire, blaze, conflagration etc). What sets Sanskrit really apart is that the meaning of an entire sentence or shloka can change.

I will explain this with an example and get into the Ramayana in the next post.

References:

1. https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm
2. http://vadirajaacharya.blogspot.com/2006/06/making-anything-happen_03.html

The Depth of Sanatana Dharma - Srirama - Part 1

I have been thinking about writing on this topic for some time. Today seemed to be an especially good day to start this. 

Due to various reasons, many Indians, especially Hindus today have no idea about Sanatana Dharma, today known as Hinduism. Our education system is completely "secular". We have "educated", "modern" Indians who think it is wrong/are scared to be publicly religious or proud. I remember a relative telling me a story in an airport, possibly outside India. The guy was asked by the immigration officer whether he was a Hindu. He adamantly kept responding he was an Indian. 

We have people like Devdutt Pattnaik who write literally what they want in the name of Hinduism. We have the leftists who actively hate anything Hindu. I do not even want to get started about evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Hinduism is VAST in the scope of its literature. It is not dependent on one book or one prophet. The Vedas take precedence as the central texts. Everything else is ultimately based on what is said in the Vedas. Abrahamic religions do have underlying themes for which the outer words are allegorical. However, I am not sure how many followers are left who get these meanings. For example, there are certain sections of the Bible which mirror concepts in saamkhya (साम्ख्य​, సాంఖ్య) philosophy of Hinduism. This was revealed by a Hindu Guru, Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri. He was the guru of Paramahamsa Yogananda, author of Autobiography of a Yogi. Islam has Sufism which mirrors some advaitic concepts. The song bulla ki jaana for example is an expression of the advaitic na iti (न इति, న ఇతి) concept. Hinduism says that every soul is divine. It states that every soul has the potential to reach the state of a Jesus or a Mohammed. Even (today's popular versions of) Christianity and Islam do not say so.

After at least 10 centuries of invasions, Hinduism still retains the knowledge of these hidden concepts. It is not for nothing that the actual name of Hinduism is sanaatana dharma (सनातन धर्म​, సనాతన ధర్మము). The first word means eternal. These are concepts that are timeless. Hence, Hindu texts cannot and should not be translated using just a dictionary. In some cases this can give wrong interpretations. This is the problem created by Devdutt Pattanaik, western Indologists etc. There are people like the Americans Dr David Frawley and Dr Robert Svoboda who understand this.

What is being given here is just a sample of the treasure trove that Hinduism has.Imagine how big a library on Hinduism would need to be.

1. Central texts are vedas, also called shrutis (श्रुति, శృతి). They were and are passed down by hearing. Also, these were heard by people called rishis in a state of consciousness you and I cannot even understand. They convey some ideas in a very brief format.
2. These concepts are elaborated upon by the puraanaas (पुराण​, పురాణము) so that the general public can understand concepts discovered by the rishis.
3. They are further simplified by the itihaasaas (इतिहास​, ఇతిహాసము). The term literally means, it so happened.
4. There are the vedaangaas which are needed to be learnt to translate the Vedas. These are shikSHa (शिक्षा, శిక్ష), vyaakaraNa (व्याकरण, వ్యాకరణము), chhandas (छन्दस्, ఛందస్సు), nirukta (निरुक्त, నిరుక్తము), jyotiSHa (ज्योतिष, జ్యోతిషము) and kalpa (कल्प, కల్పము).
5. We have the concept of yoga. Concepts in this have been elaborated upon by the sage Patanjali in his yoga sootraas.
6. The mantra shaastra (मन्त्र शास्त्र​, మంత్ర శాస్త్రము) explains the concepts and applications of mantraas which are basically dependent upon the power of sound and repetition.
7. Well know aayurveda is related to health
8. Concepts of scultpure, architecture, buildings etc. are covered in shilpashaastra, aagamashaastra and vaastushaastra.
9. Even the names of Hindu gods and goddesses have multiple layers of meanings to them.
10. There are explanations on why Hindu gods and goddesses are portrayed in specific ways.
11. There are specific meanings even to the items that they hold in their hands.

One word Hinduism uses to describe these underlying concepts and essence is tattva (तत्त्व​, తత్త్వము).

I started this post wanting to write about meanings of the name of Srirama. However, the introduction itself has taken up so much space that I will take this up in the next post.

References: Discourses by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma
Sanskrit transliteration: https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm

Sutras of Secularism

All praise to Nehru and Indira, the torch bearers of Indian secularism. Having meditated upon their glory I attained secular enlightenment.

Hereby I give you Sutras of Indian Secularism that were bestowed unto me in deep prayer. Spread them far and wide. May you attain peace!

1. Thou shalt bend over backwards for minorities (to be defined in the forthcoming lines).

2. Thou shalt not ask for equal rights for all Indians. This shalt be construed as a communal act. If thou want to ask for greater privileges to Hindus as this is the only country in the world they can call their home, thou shalt be committed to an institution and the key shalt be thrown away.

3. Only two communities which cometh from outside this land shalt be considered to be minorities. Any community of Indian descent, however minuscule may be the number of its adherents, shalt not be considered to be a minority.

4. The left shalt make all possible attempts to prove that Hinduism came from outside India, lest any communal Hindu ask questions like the one above. This shalt include the right to create outlandish conjecture-based theories for which there be no proof, or for which there be proof proving the opposite.

5. As Hindus form the majority of India's population, even in states like Meghalaya, where their population proportion be lower, they shalt not be considered minorities. Hence, no privileges afforded to members of aforementioned communities shalt be extended to Hindus in such states (what were you smoking?).

6. Any death of a member of the aforementioned communities shall be construed as an attack on the secular fabric of this country, the truth be damned. However, no killing of a Hindu shall be construed this way. In fact the Hindu was probably asking for it, and definitely deserved what he got.

7. Any animal killing/tree felling by members of aforementioned communities shalt be allowed. However, Hindus shalt have no right to do ritualistic killings (seriously, what were you smoking?). Any mass animal killing by minorities shalt be acceptable.

8. If any Indian (especially Hindu) sayeth anything against a specific minority, its members art free to kill this Indian.

9. Any Indian is free to deride Hinduism and insult and abuse its Gods. There shalt be no consequences apart from declarations of support from the left about freedom of expression.

10. Any event involving fasting by Hindu women, ghunghat etc. shalt be considered regressive and patriarchal. Thou shalt blindly accept the right of minorities to keep fasts and dress up their women such that nobody can even make out the gender of the person.

11. Minority community members shalt use public areas for their worship, irrespective of the inconvenience caused to others. Hindus shalt not claim rights to any place for which there be historical and/or archaelogical evidence that a temple was destroyed.

12. "Savarna" Hindus shalt be indefinitely held guilty for perceived and actual discrimination against "backward" castes. This shalt be written and taught in history for eternity.

13. No atrocity however brutal, no genocide however massive, no destruction however widespread shalt be mentioned even in passing in history if it was against Hindus. It shalt be acceptable to deify those who commit such acts against Hindus.

14. A minority community shalt have the freedom to convert a Hindu to its fold by any means possible - monetary inducements, threats, copying Hindu rituals etc. Hindus shalt not have any right to protest (come on, we are secular!).

15. Members from foreign countries from a certain community shalt be free to come in as "refugees". They may have committed any atrocity in their home country. This shalt be overlooked. They may be settled across the country.

16. Kashmiri Pandits shalt not ask to go back to Kashmir. There were no atrocities committed against them (come on, if there was even one incident they were asking for it). Persecuted Hindus from other countries shalt not be given refuge in India.

17. If it be a matter of Hindu faith, the legal system shalt pronounce judgement, and quickly, such that Hindu rights be trampled upon. However, if said matter involves a minority communities, the legal system shalt take a few decades to deliberate, and shalt ask for mediation. The legal system shalt also be free to consider this a matter of faith that the legal system cannot adjudicate upon.

18. The state shalt extract money from Hindu institutions. It shalt be free to spend this on members of all communities. It shalt be free to even provide benefits to  Hindus who convert to a minority community.

19. The state shalt not interfere in any religious matters of the aforementioned minorities. It shalt not collect money from them in any way.

20. Any scripture of Hindus, however humane or scientific it may be shalt be considered for public teaching (really, I want the stuff you keep smoking).

21. Any Indian shalt be free to raise insulting and outlandish questions against any Hindu God. For this they shalt not need any prior reading of Hindu texts. No religious scripture or personality of a minority community shall be commented upon as these are matters of faith and law and order.

22. Only crackers burst during Deepavali shalt be considered polluting.

23. Common laws shalt apply mostly to Hindus. Minorities shalt be free to have their own civil laws.

24. All literature, history, laws, policies etc. shall be created in such that the Hindu loses all sense of his civilisational history and prominence.

Do the Dasavataras Portray Evolution?

India has provided many things to the world from times long past - the decimal system, simple numbering scheme, Yoga etc. It has often been claimed that ancient Indians knew a lot of things which are being rediscovered now - like nuclear weapons(?). It has also been said that many things that Indians discovered have wrongly been attributed to foreigners, for whatever reasons - calculus, the Pythagoras theorem etc. There are also people who have claimed things like the presence of plastic surgery, taking Ganesha's story. 

Certain points are readily available for people to check. Some are conjecture-based. Some are obviously purely chauvinistic. I get a bit surprised when I see these chauvinists. Hinduism and Vedas are not so weak that they need western confirmation on every point. While rightly defending what must be attributed to Hindus it is also foolish to claim that everything originated here.

Often, there are people who feel very proud when they see something mentioned in the scriptures find scientific confirmation. While this is obviously nice, people should also note that what is considered "science" or "scientific information" keeps changing. So, if the aforementioned "scientific fact" is later disproved, will they lose their faith also? Hindus consider the Vedas infallible as these are apauruSheya (अपौरुषेय​, అపౌరుషేయ), not written by man. Hence, it is kind of self defeating to keep on trying to find validation in the material world.

One such thing is that the Hindu dashaavataaraas, the ten incarnations of Lord Vishnu portray the concept of evolution. The logic is that they begin with a fish, move to an amphibian, land animal and then man. I disagree. Let me explain why.

1. Contrary to popular belief, Lord Vishnu did not have only ten incarnations.
2. The SreemadbhAgavatam itself lists many more (I think 25) like Kapila, Vyasa et al. It also mentions that His incarnations are countless. Other well known incarnations are Mohini and Dattatreya.
3. The ten listed incarnations are not in chronological order. For example, Parashurama was a precursor to Rama. However, in the list Rama comes before Parasurama.
4. There are different kinds of incarnations. For example the incarnations of Rama and Krishna are considered to be paripoorNa (परिपूर्ण​, పరిపూర్ణ) avatArAs which means the "entire essence" of God descended to the earth. Parasurama's is said to be an aavesha (आवेश​, ఆవేశ) avataara wherein only a part is said to have descended.

Now if someone were to ask me whether Hinduism has a problem with evolution, my personal opinion is that it does not. My personal belief is that the end result of evolution is mukti. I have dealt with this earlier. This is not the Abrahamic heaven or hell but is something beyond these. Many may have heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Interestingly he himself later added a fifth one related to spirituality. In the bhagavadgeeta Lord Krishna says the following:

बहूनाम् जन्मनाम् अन्ते ञानवान् माम् प्रपद्यते
वासुदेवः सर्वमिति स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः

బహూనామ్ జన్మనామ్ అంతే జ్ఞానవాన్ మాం ప్రపద్యతే
వాసుదేవః సర్వమితి స మహాత్మా సుదుర్లభః

bahoonAm janmanAm ante gnyAnavAn mAm prapadyate
vAsudevah sarvamiti sa mahAtmA sudurlabhah

At the end of many births, the enlightened one attains me. That great soul who thinks Vaasudeva is everything, it is immensely difficult to find.

I know, this is not the same as the "scientific" concept of evolution. In evolution there is no continuity of the same entity. It is the genes that are passed down. I feel science has not yet discovered (or publicly acknowledged sufficiently) certain concepts. The theory of karma allows for a soul to take birth as the simplest (lowest?) life form and then ultimately become a human being (I hope to discuss karma a little later). The ultimate aim of human life is again, mutki.

Thus ends this post.

References:
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-07-19.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Sanskrit transliteration: https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm

On debating

This post was inspired by a discussion I had with a junior from my engineering college who currently works with the leftist portal Scroll.

Omar Abdullah recently spoke about "PM" of J&K which was countered by Modi in one of his speeches. This reminded me of a scene from the movie "Leader". Telugu people will understand this. A wannabe CM (Raghubabu) of the state laments about what he would do in the aftermath of a terror attack. The actual CM (Rana Daggubati), simply reminds the press that he IS the CM. The aforementioned article, while being quite informative seemed to be sympathetic to Abdullah Jr. I questioned him on what the point of the article was and he said it was to generate a debate. Then he said that is all there is to human life. To debate and then to die.

Is that all there is to life? To debate and to die? Nothing else? That statement somehow seems typically communist. West Bengal, a state long under communism has this concept of "adda" where people gather, maybe smoke and drink tea, debate and then disperse. Amartya Sen, another Bengali wrote an entire book, The Argumentative Indian (I have not read it). "Kerala, another state that has seen a lot of communist rule also seems to have these local (sort of) one-room clubs where people play carrom. I have nothing against leisure and debate, I am all for them! Just that, is there nothing else?

Indian culture definitely welcomes debate. But debate is only a means to an end, not the end in itself. The ultimate debate for a Hindu is about what the self is and how to attain liberation. One of the many paths to reach God (not religions, inside Sanatana Dharma itself) is gnyaana yoga, the path of knowledge. In this there is a continuous quest for what the self is. The advaitin questions, is it the body, is it the mind, so on and so forth. There is the concept of na iti or neti (न इति, नेति, న ఇతి, నేతి). It means, not this. The seeker debates continuously, whether a certain thing is God or not and then ultimately after a great time attains self-realization. Obviously there are other things he has to do other than debate!

There is a Sanskrit sloka:

काव्यशास्त्रविनोदेन कालो गच्छति धीमताम्
व्यसनेन तु मूर्खाणाम् निद्रया कलहेन वा

కావ్యశాస్త్రవినోదేన కాలో గచ్ఛతి ధీమతామ్ 

వ్యసనేన తు మూర్ఖాణాం నిద్రయా కలహేన వా

The intelligent ones spend their time in the enjoyment of kaavyaas and shaastraas. Foolish ones spend it in vice, sleep or quarrel. The term kaavya here might mean epics or poetry. However, in one sense the terms is applicable to the Veda.

References: Speech by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma

Sanskrit transliteration: https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_latin.htm

श्रीगुरुचरणारविन्दार्पणम् अस्तु

Joey Tribbiani the philosopher?

Ok, I am guilty. The headline was click-bait. However, this post does build on what the character Joey says in an episode of the massively famous sitcom, Friends. I am not sure who was the writer of those lines. But s/he unveiled a profound philosophical thought.

I am adding Telugu transliteration in deference to a request I received in a comment earlier. I apologize for having missed seeing that.

Paraphrasing, in an episode, Joey tells Phoebe, another character that there is no selfless action in this world as ultimately anything one thinks is selfless actually makes one happy. This may seem a very simple thing to say. But reflect on it. It is true.This is not to say that altruism is bad or useless. No, that is not the intention of this post.

Normally people think of rishis as men. Yes, true. However, Hinduism mentions numerous women as well who were of that stature. Hinduism does not deny liberation or for that matter knowledge to anybody based on gender, class etc. All are capable of attaining liberation, mukti (mind you, I am not talking about being saved and going to heaven), if they prove themselves worthy of it. There was one such lady named Gargi (गार्गी గార్గి). There was a debate between her and Yaagnyavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य  యాజ్ఞవల్క్య) on what it is, that is dearest to us.Yaagnyavalkya says it is the Self. Please note that Self here does not refer to the body, or to the I-ness (identification). It refers to the soul that is within all of us.

Say, you disagree. No, you love your husband or wife the most. Let us restate that. Your spouse is the one that is most dear TO YOU. Hence, says Yaagnyavalkya, the self is that which is dearest to us in the entire creation. Hence, self-realization is the ultimate aim of a Hindu, not heaven. You can apply this logic to anything in this wide world. Everything boils down to you liking that.

Now, does this mean we should stop doing "selfless" acts? An emphatic no! We should always be available to serve as needed. However, what must go is the ego, that I helped someone. This is what Lord Krishna refers to as nishkaama karma. Action without the anticipation of result. Action that is submitted to the Lord. Action where the doer is identified as the Lord, and where the own self is only seen as an instrument. The self is the flute through which the divine wind must flow to produce beautiful music. Hindu rituals also end with the phrase "om tat sat, sarvam sree parabrahmaarpaNam astu" (ॐ तत् सत् सर्वं श्रीपरब्रह्मार्पणं अस्तु ఓం తత్ సత్ సర్వం శ్రీపరబ్రహ్మార్పణం అస్తు). Everything done as part of the ritual, including the result/merit gained via it is offered to the Lord.

Let me close this post with the famous sloka from the Gita

karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleShu kadaachana

maa karmaphalaheturbhooh maa te sangostvakarmaNi

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन​
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूः मा ते सनगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि

కర్మణ్యేవాధికారస్తే మా ఫలేషు కదాచన 

మా కర్మఫలహేతుర్భూర్మా  తే సంగోऽస్త్వకర్మణి

Your right is only to act, not attaining the result. Do not be motivated by the results of your action. (But) do not find interest in not acting at all.

The last portion is a warning that being idle is also an action, and not a good one.

References: 

1. Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma's discourses

2. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-46.html