The Depth of Sanatana Dharma - Srirama - Part 3

This is part of a series I have been writing. Here are part 1 and part 2.

In the third part I am actually approaching the topic of the series.

As is well known, the Ramayana was written by Valmiki Maharshi. The epic begins with the sage questioning the divine sage, Narada. From a surface perspective Valmiki asks Narada whether there existed at that point of time a person with sixteen qualities. However, all of these can be interpreted in a different way to apply to the Supreme Lord. Thus, in essence what Valmiki had asked was whether God was present at that time on earth (as an incarnation). This is another example of the flexibility and beauty of the Sanskrit language.

After this, Valmiki comes upon a hunter who slays one out of a pair of birds in the forest. He bursts out in a metrical shloka surprising himself. This is said to be the first human-made shloka because of which Valmiki is honoured as Adikavi (आदिकविः, ఆదికవి) or first poet. It is famously said that the shloka was born out of shoka (sorrow). It goes like this.

मा निषाद प्रतिष्ठां त्वमगमः शाश्वतीः समाः |
यत् क्रौञ्चमिथुनादेकमवधीः काममोहितम् ||

mA niShAda pratiShThAm tvamagamah shAshvatIh samAh

yat kraunchamithunAdEkam avadhIh kAmamOhitam

మా నిషాద ప్రతిష్ఠామ్ త్వమగమః శాశ్వతీస్సమాః

యత్ క్రౌఞ్చమిథునాదేకం అవధీః కామమోహితం 

This shloka can be translated as cursing the hunter to not gain fame (or to gain infamy) for eons due to his act of a killing one bird out of a passionate couple. If the first two words are coupled it becomes mAniShAda which means one in whom mA (not the Hindi word), Lakshmi resides. This word is now the sane as Srinivasa, which is another name for Vishnu. From this perspective, the meaning changes completely.  It now praises Rama to have fame for eons as the killer of the passionate (lustful) one out of the (rakshasa) couple (of Ravana and Mandodari).

Now let us come to his name itself. There are many meanings to the name of Rama. I will just talk about 1 or 2.

The name Rama is said to be derived from two letters, each of which is a prANAkSharam (प्राणाक्षरम्, ప్రాణాక్షరం) of two famous mantras, one of Vishnu and one of Shiva. What is this? It is a letter which is like life to that mantra.

Vishnu's mantra is namO nArAyaNAya (नमो नारायणाय​, నమో నారాయణాయ​) and Shiva's is namah shivAya (नमः शिवाय​, నమః శివాయ​). Each mantra means salutation to that particular deity. Rama is derived from ra in the first mantra and ma in the second one. If rA is removed from the first one it becomes "na ayanAya" which means without refuge or direction. If ma is removed from the second one, it becomes na shivAya (or for not the auspicious, or for the inauspicious). Thus the name Rama combines the essence of two great mantras. I will share a few more details in the forthcoming post.

References:

1. Discourses by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma

2. https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga2/bala_2_frame.htm

Transliteration:

1. https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm

2. https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/telugu.htm

3. Blogger

Another post on Hanuman

I wanted to post this on Chaitra Shukla Pournami (five days back) which is widely celebrated as Hanuman's birthday. Anyway, better late than never. I am actually in the middle of a series on Srirama and Sanskrit. However, I am sure Srirama will forgive this detour to talk about his bhakta. In this post as well, I will illustrate the beauty of Sanskrit's multi-layered personality.

This post can be read in continuation with an earlier one. I had written about how Anjaneya personified humility. I want to share a few more details here. 

Let us first come to his name, Hanuman. Many people will be aware of the story where Hanuman as an infant lunges for the sun and is struck down by Indra. The injury on his jaw (hanu in Sanskrit) gives him the name Hanuman. Now this is one meaning. We use the jaw when we speak. Thus Hanuman also means one who speaks well. It in fact goes a step beyond that. To speak well, it is critical for good knowledge to be present. Thus Hanuman also means one with knowledge. When Hanuman first meets Srirama in the Ramayana he asks certain questions. Srirama remarks to Lakshmana how his speech bears Hanuman to be one who is well versed in all the shaastras.

Now in the older post we have discussed how Hanuman personifies humility. Let me share once again what I wrote there. When Hanuman is about to leave for Lanka he magnifies his form and utters a sloka.

यथा राघवनिर्मुक्तः शरः श्वसनविक्रमः
गच्चेत्तद्वद्गमिष्यामि लङ्कां रावणपालिताम् 

 

యథా రాఘవనిర్ముక్తశ్శరః శ్వసనవిక్రమః 

గచ్ఛేత్ తద్వద్ గమిష్యామి లంకాం రావణపాలితామ్  

 

yathaa raaghavanirmuktah sharah shvasanavikramah

gachchhet tadvad gamiShyaami lankaam raavana paalitaam

 

Srirama is described by Vishwamitra as Satyaparakrama, one whose valour is unchallenged. Srirama's arrow that way is unstoppable. It also has the quality of coming back to him once it hit the target. Hanuman says he is like that. He does not give any credit to himself.

 

Later, in Lanka he proclaims who he is. This is popularly called jayaghosha. In the Ramayana, the Sundarakaanda holds a very special place. One reason for it is that it encapsulates the entire Ramayana, till that time, and afterwards. Hanuman narrates what has happened till that time to Sita and promises her Ravana's end which is what happens next. This jayaghosha is said to carry the essence of the Sundarakaanda itself. Even here, he initially proclaims to be Srirama's daasa. Then, since he is in enemy territory, he proclaims his strength.

जयत्यतिबलो रामो लक्ष्मणश्च महाबलः
राजा जयति सुग्रीवो राघवेणाभिपालितः
 

दासोऽहम् कोसलेन्द्रस्य रामस्याक्लिष्टकर्म्णः
हनुमान् शत्रुसैन्यानाम् निहन्ता मारुतात्मजः

 

न रावणसहस्रम् मे युद्धे प्रतिबलम् भवेत्
शिलाभिस्तु प्रहरतः पदपैश्च सहस्रसः

अर्दयित्वा पुरीम् लङ्काम् अभिवाद्य च मैथिलीम्
समृद्धार्थो गमिष्यामि मिषताम् सर्वरक्षसाम्

 

 

జయత్యతిబలో రామో లక్ష్మణశ్చ మహాబలః 

రాజా జయతి సుగ్రీవో రాఘవేణాభిపాలితః 

 

దాసోహం కోసలేంద్రస్య రామస్యాక్లిష్టకర్మణః 

హనుమాన్ శత్రుసైన్యానాం నిహంతా మారుతాత్మజః 

 

న రావణసహస్రం మే యుద్ధే ప్రతిబలం భవేత్ 

శిలాభిస్తు ప్రహరతః పాదపైశ్చ సహస్రసః 

 

అర్దయిత్వా పురీం లంకాం అభివాద్య చ మైథిలీం

సమృద్ధార్థో గమిష్యామి మిషతాం సర్వరాక్షసామ్

 

jayatyati balo rAmo lakShmaNasca maHabalah

rAjA jayati sugreevo rAghaveNAbhipAlitah

 

dAsoham kosalendrasya rAmasyAkliShta karmaNah

hanumAn shatrusainyAnAm nihantA mArutAtmajah

 

na rAvaNa sahasram me yuddhe pratibalam bhavet

shilAbhistu praharatah pAdapaisca sahasrasah 

ardayitvA pureem lankAm abhivAdya ca maithileem

samruddhArtho gamiShyAmi miShatAm sarvarakShasAm

 

Broadly: Victory to Rama the almighty, victory to Lakshmana the strong. Victory to King Sugreeva, who is ruled over by Rama. I am the servant of the ruler of Kosala, Rama, he who removes difficulties. I am Hanuman, destroyer of enemy armies, born of the Wind. Even thousands of Ravanas cannot face me in battle. I will torment this city of Lanka with

 

Further, if one observes the Ramayana closely, those who served Srirama benefit in one way or the other. Sugreeva befriends Srirama to win back his wife and kingdom. Vibheeshana, though he reaches Srirama out of devotion, also benefits from the kingship of Lanka after Ravana's demise. It is only Hanuman who does not materially benefit in the Ramayana. He is the only one who truly serves Srirama without asking for anything in return. He exists to serve Srirama.

 

In fact Hanuman actually helps the main characters in the Ramayana. He brings the mountain of herbs to resuscitate Lakshmana. When Hanuman finds Sita she is about to commit suicide by hanging herself with her long hair. He gives her hope. He aids Srirama in his quest and helps him in multiple ways. In fact, Srirama admits in the Ramayana that he cannot offer anything to Hanuman in return for his help. Tulasidas says in his Hanuman Chalisa that Hanuman resides in the heart of Srirama, Sita and Lakshmana. Is it surprising in any way?

 

The Ramayana is unique in an (among many) aspect. There are words spoken by (at least initially) negative characters that have become famous in a positive manner. There is a famous statement, rAmo virahavAn dharmah (रामो विग्रहवान् धर्मः, రామో విగ్రహవాన్ ధర్మః). It means Srirama is Dharma personified. Do you know who utters these words? Maareecha, the rakshasa Ravana employs to play the role of the golden deer! 

There is one similar thing for Hanuman. There is a part in the Sundarakaanda where Hanuman comes across Lankini the guardian deity of Lanka. When he defeats her, she asks him to be pleased with and protect her. This has become a mantra. The second line of the sloka below is taken verabtim from Lankinis' words in the Ramayana (not the first part mind you). This can be chanted especially by those who have mental/psychological problems they wish to be rid of.

सन्जीवपर्वतोद्धार मनोदुःखम् निवारय​
प्रसीद सुमहाबाहो त्रायस्व हरिसत्तम​

సంజీవపర్వతోద్ధార మనోదుఃఖం నివారయ 

ప్రసీద సుమహాబాహో త్రాయస్వ హరిసత్తమ

sanjeevaparvatoddhAra manoduhkham nivAraya

praseeda sumahAbAho trAyasva harisattama

 

In Sanskrit, the word Hari can mean Vishnu, a lion or a monkey. Thus the broad meaning of this sloka is, "Oh one who bore the Sanjeevani mountain, please prevent/remove the sorrow of my mind. Be pleased with me, one with great arms, protect me, the strongest among the vanaras."

 

Those who wish to overcome certain difficulties or are looking to achieve a certain objective are also asked to chant the following mantra four times - sree hanumAn jaya hanumAn jaya jaya hanumAn (श्रीहनुमान् जय हनुमान् जय जय हनुमान्, శ్రీహనుమాన్ జయ హనుమాన్ జయ జయ హనుమాన్). The total works out to chanting his name 12 twelve times.

 

Hanuman is a chiranjeevi. Technically, unless I am mistaken this does not mean actual immortality but an extremely long life. We find Hanuman in the Mahabharata. He first comes up when Bhima roams in the Himalayas during the Pandavas' exile. He cautions him against disturbing the peace and sanctity of a certain place. He later manifests in the flag (dhwaja) of Arjuna's chariot.

Tulasidas is said to have come upon Hanuman. He was able to recognize and catch hold of Hanuman after a recitation of the Ramayana. Even today whenever Ramayana is recited or spoken about anywhere there is one seat reserved for Hanuman. Imagine how many times the Ramayana would have been  spoken about over hundreds and thousands of years. He is still said to hear every Ramayana recital with tears of joy in his eyes. Let me end this post on this note.

यत्र यत्र रघुनाथकीर्तनम् तत्र तत्र कृत मस्तकान्जलिम्
बाष्पवारिपरिपूर्णलोचनम् मारुतिम् नमत राक्षसान्तकम्

యత్ర యత్ర రఘునాథకీర్తనం తత్ర తత్ర కృత మస్తకాంజలిమ్ 

బాష్పవారిపరిపూర్ణలోచనం మారుతిం నమత రాక్షసాంతకమ్

yatra yatra raghunAthakeertanam tatra tatra kruta mastakAnjalim

bAshpavAri paripoorNa lochanam mArutim namata rAkShasAntakam

Broad meaning: I salute Maruti, who is to be found with his head bowed and eyes full of tears (of joy, on hearing his Lord's praise) wherever there is praise of Srirama.

 

References:

1. Ramayana discourse by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma

2. https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga1/sundara_1_frame.htm 

3. https://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/sanskrit_devanagari.htm

4. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga43/sundara_43_frame.htm

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

The hubris of an atheist

This post was prompted by a show I saw on the Discovery Science Channel - How the Universe Works. This was around the so-called dark matter. What struck me was how much of what we call "science" is conjecture, without proof (a scientist would claim it is proof that has not yet been discovered). Further, where physics is concerned, specifically particle/theoretical physics, nothing is intuitive. There is nothing which can be grasped by traditional human senses. The physicist/mathematician comes up with all kinds of mathematics and the rest are asked to just believe.

Now, at the risk of being accused of committing blasphemy against science, I argue that this is not so different from a spiritual seeker. Mind you, I am not using the term religious, but spiritual. The western world is mostly familiar with Abrahamic religions, which are highly anthropomorphic in their concept of God, or are at least highly centred around humans. This may be among the points (apart from God being jealous, or favouring a certain sect over others) that turn a westerner towards atheism. If an Indian becomes an atheist it possibly means he has not explored the land's spiritual principles fully. 

The Vedas say parabrahman is indescribable, without form, shape or qualities. This parabrahman is said to take form (any God) for the sake of the spiritual seeker's convenience. A child cannot reach its mother. The mother has to bend down and pick up the child in her arms. The Hindu believes it is the same with God. I am using God and parabrahman interchangeably in this post, and I do not mean a personal God in the Abrahamic sense. The Abrahamic God is what a Hindu would consider saguna brahma, or saakaara, with form. The Islamic concept of Allah is closer to that of nirguna brahma, (without attributes) or niraakara (without form). However, Islam insists God is male. The Hindu says parabrahma has no gender, as that is also an attribute.

Now, a spiritual person seeks God. A scientist seeks truth behind/underlying creation/existence. By definition, God is beyond the senses. So it is deemed futile to prove the existence of God by any material means. Science by definition is within the parameters of this universe. Hence, science can never prove the existence of God. The atheist takes the easy way out and says there is no God. Now, as the common saying goes, absence of proof is not proof of absence. The physicist/atheist does not understand the physical world itself. Nobody knows why something as fundamental as light/radiation behaves as both a wave and a particle. However, the same physicist atheist wants to have proof that God exists. The atheist, who cannot understand the known universe itself wants proof of the energy behind the universe. That is what makes me laugh at the hubris of an atheist. Now an atheist is entitled to his views. But so am I!

The seeker embarks on a long process to realise God. Please note that Hinduism does not talk only about reaching God, but realising God. It says that each and everything in creation has the spark of the divine. Moksha is simply realising this fact. That is all there is to it, nothing else. One must note that realising and knowing are two entirely different things. What separates knowing from realising is avidyaa or maayaa. I say an atheist is lazy. He does not have the patience to embark on the spiritual path to realise God. He takes the easy way out. Now the counter claim would be that he would waste time on embarking on a process which he knows is doomed to fail as there is no God. This is where one laughs again at the hubris.

Let me end with a few poems from the Telugu version of the bhaagavata puraana (apologies upfront for mistakes). This is a translation (with some differences from the Sanskrit original) bt Sri Bammera Potana (पोतना - Hindi transliteration is very painful, does not do justice to Sanskrit or Telugu). Many think that the bhaagavata puraana is a vaishnava purana. It is. However, there is a huge amount of vedaanta and (advaita contained therein) in the puraana (like any Hindu literature).

evvaniche janinchu jagamevvani lOpalanundu leenamai

yevvaniyanduDindu paramESwaruDevvaDu moolakaaraNambevvaDu

anaadimadhyalayuDevvaDu sarvamu taanainavaaDevvadu

vaaninaatmabhavu neeSwarunE SaraNambu vEDedan

I seek refuge in him, from whom the world arises, in whom it exists, in whom it merges and rests, he who is the supreme lord, he who is the primordial cause (behind creation), he who is without beginning, middle or end, he who is everything (creation is his form), he who is self-existent, he who is the lord.

lOkambulu lOkESulu lOkasthulu tegina tudi

alOkambagu penjeekatikavvala evvanDEkaakruti velugu

atani nE sEvintun

I serve him, who shines as One (even) in the unworldly immense darkness after the worlds, their rulers and their denizens cease to exist.

Do these verses call upon a personal God? No. Do they call upon a God with form? No. They talk about the essence and energy that is behind everything that we know as the universe, and is beyond it. Hinduism says, as is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. Is everything, from me to the universe not made of the same particles? And can a physicist deny the universe is conscious? The physicist is himself part of the universe and is conscious. Human life (without considering others) is conscious. Thus, is the universe not conscious of itself? Hinduism asks the seeker to realise the greater consciousness behind everything. Simple.

I seriously request physicists and atheists to explore vedaanta and then see whether they still retain their concept of atheism.

Originally published on 22 December, 2018. Modified on 23 December.

On the Sandhyavandanam, part 2

This is in continuation with the earlier post.

In this post I want to share the broad meaning of the gaayatri mantra. I will not even attempt to go into the multiple meanings. I am not aware of them, and I am sure there are many. An interesting thing about Vedic mantras is the layers of meanings that come with most if not all of them. Vedic knowledge is also referred to as trayee vidya (त्रयी विद्या). One reason for this is the three layers of meanings present in these slokas. These are referred to as adhibhautika (अधिभौतिक​), adhidaivika (अधिदैविक​) and aadhyaatmika (आध्यात्मिक​). These correspond to aspects pertaining to living beings, cosmic forces and our own body.

Also related to this is why shaanti mantras end with shaantih, shaantih, shaantih (शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः). We are said to have three types of troubles - taapatraya (तापत्रय​), pertaining to the points mentioned above - those caused due to living beings (infections, bites etc.), due to cosmic/natural forces (earthquakes, floods etc.) and those that generate in our body itself (allergies, diseases etc.).

Now coming to the gaayatri. One meaning of the mantra which is commonly referred to as the gaayatri is the following:

We meditate upon that ultimate/superior radiance of Lord Savita, which energises our intelligence.

Now coming to the gaayatri that I mentioned everybody can chant (sarva chaitanyaroopaam...)

We meditate upon that primordial knowledge, she who is the embodiment of all consciousness/energy, she who energises our intellect.

If you notice, both have a similar meaning. It is not, "I pray", but "we pray". I had mentioned earlier, that a person who has had the upanayana samskaara (sacred thread ceremony) must perform sandhyavandanam for the sake of all creation. This is an illustration of that. Further, if we notice both the public gaayatri (sarva chaitanyaroopaam..) and the received (from a guru, today the purohita performing the ceremony) gaayatri  carry similar meanings. Let me reiterate that the received gaayatri must NOT be chanted by all, but by only those who wear the sacred thread. The public version is literally free-for-all.

Now what does it actually mean? We will analyse it in phases. I will talk about the general version.

1. The mantra extols the intelligence/consciousness/energy behind ALL creation. In this mantra we refer to the deity in the feminine gender. A sidenote for all the feminists out there. This is an example of the exalted position actually given to women in Hinduism. This deity is also referred to as vidyaa (विद्या), which is the opposite of avidyaa (ignorance). Now these two terms are related to maayaa, which I will talk about later. For now, let us simply say that we are referring to the deity as the ultimate knowledge. The mantra also refers to the deity as aadhyaa (आद्या). This is because the deity is the origin of all that was, is and will ever be in the entire creation.
2. Now, why should this ultimate consciousness energise our intellect? It actually means to energise the intellect to move in the right direction. To guide us onto the right path. It is only by our intellect/mind that we decide which path we take. Unless one is a psycopath or someone like that, an average human being has a well-functioning conscience which points out what is felt to be right or wrong. This is irrespective of what we ultimately end up doing. Via the mantra the practitioner or upaasaka (उपासक​) asks for his intellect to be guided such that he always chooses what is morally right and beneficial to him.

I will end this post here. In the coming posts, I will share my thoughts around concepts like karma and maayaa.

References: 

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Adhibhautika,_adhidaivika,_%C4%81dhy%C4%81tmika
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Mantra

On the Sandhyavandanam

In an earlier post, I had talked about how Hinduism is actually a monotheistic religion, as it considers all Gods representations of the One Truth, Parabrahma. The basic end objective of a follower of sanaatana dharma is not heaven, but moksha or liberation. I will talk about this in another blog post.

Now, as part of life man is supposed to have broadly three kinds of devotional activities - nitya (नित्य), naimittika (नैमित्तिक) and kaamya (काम्य) - those which are to be followed daily, on special occasions (festivals for example) and for fulfillment of desires respectively.

Of these the nitya karma component includes basic pooja, the sandhyaavandanam and many other activities, which are today followed as an exception rather than as the rule (I know a few names - agnihotram, brahmayagnyam, vaiswadevam et al).

The most basic practice of a Hindu's life is the sandhyaavandanam. I want to focus on this in this post. Everbody knows about namaaz, and how Muslims religiously follow it. Many Christians compulsorily go to church every Sunday. Many, if not most are not even aware of the Vedic sandhyaavandanam, or have major misconceptions around it. And I am talking about Hindus themselves.

This practice takes primacy over any other ritual activity. According to the Vedic scriptures, a person that does not do the sandhyaavandanam becomes unclean and unfit to do any other pooja or ritual or vratam. Thus, without doing this basic practice no benefits will accrue via going on pilgrimages or doing any other ritual - vratam, yagnyam or abhishekam. 

Another important point to be noted is that one's varna does not matter. There is a misconception that only Brahmins, or maybe those who wear the sacred thread can do the sandhyaavandanam. Wrong, EVERY Hindu MUST do the sandhyaavandanam ideally thrice a day. The difference is in the methodology. Those who wear the sacred thread have a prescribed format in which they must do it. Those who do not can actually chant a specific mantra at least thrice, or for that matter recite anything of their choice at the prescribed times. Further, it is said that those who wear the sacred thread must do it not only for their sake, but for the sake of everyone's welfare. The Vedas constantly talk not just about personal welfare. They go beyond that, and talk about humanity's welfare and that of all living creatures and the universe itself. Various shaanti mantraas talk about peace across the universe, and not for just the person chanting the mantra.

Another example of this is borne out by the plural (not singular, as in for the worshipper) term used in the gaayatri mantra. This is the core/heart of sandhyaavandanam. Again, there are many misconceptions and erroneous practices around this. 

1. What does gaayatri actually mean? Crudely, it means that which protects the praanas in us (गयान् त्रायते इति गायत्री). It also means that which protects the person that chants it, in the prescribed method (गातारम् त्रायते इति गायत्री).
2. Mantra means that which protects by continuous contemplation/chanting (मननात् त्रायते इति मन्त्रः).
3. So, one thing that must be followed, is that a mantra must NOT be said out aloud. So there is no way, it should be recorded and broadcast on loudspeakers.
4. What is commonly referred to as the gaayatri is not meant for everyone. Each varna can have its own gaayatri. What people commonly think of as the gaayatri is actually to be chanted only by Brahmins (and maybe by those who wear the sacred thread). Those who do not wear it can chant the following mantra thrice. The meaning is the same as that of any gaayatri. They can also recite anything of their choice at the prescribed times.

sarvachaitanyaroopaam taam

aadhyaam vidhyaam cha dheemahi

buddhim yaa nah prachodayaat

सर्वचैतन्यरूपाम् ताम्
आद्याम् विद्याम् च धीमहि
बुद्धिम् या नः प्रचोदयात्

It is the chanting of the gaayatri that is heart of the ritual. Parabrahma is invoked in the form of gaayatri. This is an example of how the feminine aspect is given the highest respect in Hinduism. Gaayatri is called the veda maata (वेदमाता). 

For those who wear the sacred thread, the ritual, when done in entirety has three components. 

1. Purification of oneself and invitation to gaayatri to enter the practitioner - shuddhi and aavaahanam (शुद्धिक्रिया, आवाहनम्​)

2. Chanting of the gaayatri mantra - mantra japam (मन्त्रजपम्)

3. Bidding farewell to gaayatri - upasthaanam (उपस्थानम्)

The broad meaning of the gaayatri (any version) and other topics will be covered in the next post.

Reference: Speech by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma (Telugu video): Link here.

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

How Rahul Gandhi can help the BJP increase its membership

The readers of my posts would have gathered by now that I have a distinct right wing tilt. Some of my family members have been associated with the RSS for decades. My studies till class 10 were in a school run by an organization which is part of the overall RSS umbrella.

However, till date, I have never been a member of the RSS or the BJP. I attended a few shakhas, but always because someone took me there, and not out of my own volition. However, today I took the decision to become a formal member of the BJP. I in fact paid money to become a formal member. Not that I will become politically active or participate in dharnas etc. It was a knee-jerk reaction, my personal way of protest when I saw Rahul Gandhi's press conference today.

I do not want to go into the morality or legality of whatever has transpired after the latest assembly elections in Karnataka. I do confess that I wanted a BJP government to come to power, though in retrospect, it looks as if the BJP would have been better off sitting on the sidelines, and let the drama play out.

What pushed me towards my symbolic protest was the sheer entitlement that was oozing from Rahul Gandhi. According to him, the Congress would have "let" the BJP come to power had they won the majority on their own. Let? Does this guy think he owns the country, its Constitution, its institutions (which he claims are being decimated and/or hijacked by Modi and team) and its citizens? Does he think all of them exist to serve at his pleasure? Let us look at what all he did during these elections. He campaigned, in multiple constituencies. I understand that the Congress lost most if not all the seats where he campaigned. He in fact queered the pitch for an INC-JD(S) tie-up by calling the JD(S) a B-team of the BJP (he apparently apologised later to Deve Gowda). Imagine, the party president apologised due to his goof-up. The team which ran to the Supreme Court, and also handled the situation on the ground in Karnataka was not his team. It was managed by Sonia Gandhi, who seems to have been forced to enter the arena.

As soon as it became apparent the Congress was losing, there were obvious attempts to shield him. He was in hiding all the time, from counting till recently. Suddenly, one saw him with a smug smile, delivering a sanctimonious lecture after the events of today. And my God, the sense of entitlement! The way he seemed to insist that the RSS and BJP were destroying "institutions" without any regard. If one were to point out the falsehoods that were peddled by the Congress about the "murder of democracy", the text would possibly run into pages. On top of that were congratulations pouring in from various quarters. The AP CM, who till recently, was part of the NDA, and suddenly started claiming that nothing was being done for the state was one. Another was Mamata. In the recently concluded Panchayat elections in Bengal there have been multiple reports of booth capturing, rigging, rapes, murders etc. which were not even covered in the mainstream media. I understand that in many seats, the election was unanimous as there was no competition to the TMC candidate. After all this, the lady has the gall to lecture about how she believes in democracy.

As many people pointed out, the coming elections in 2019 seem to be clearly demarcated as competition between Modi and the rest of the media and political parties, who seem to be unanimously against him. The BJP has various points in its favour due to whatever it has done till date. Possibly, for the first time, a bankruptcy case has been successfully settled via the new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). There are scores of Modi supporters on social media who provide points against the competition. In parallel with whatever populist/welfare schemes are being taken up by the central government, the success of the BJP will also depend upon how Modi and team explain to the population, what they see as injustice being meted out to the country because of the current opposition. Modi and team, do not have a strong ecosystem to convey their view. The Congress does. Hence, if Modi wants to retain power, it all depends on how effectively his work is conveyed to the people, and also on how effectively the opposition's version is countered. This is one reason I titled the post the way I did.

Also, interestingly, there were howls of protests when Yeddyurappa was given two weeks to prove his strength. Now Kumaraswamy has been given the same time. Everything is silent, no protests any more. 

As for Bengaluru and Karnataka, assuming the INC-JD(S) government lasts for some time, one must hope that lakes continue to be rejuvenated, something is done to reduce the traffic congestion, and the white-topping of roads, which I believe was halted before the elections, restarts and finishes. It would also be interesting to see how long the government would last.

Why I think people like Kamal Haasan are wrong

There has been a controversy over a Sanskrit song sung during an event at IIT Madras some time back. The criticism ranged from why a Tamil song that was sung "routinely" was not sung, to "imposition" of Sanskrit and Hindi. I actually wanted to have a stronger headline, then I toned it down.

Let me say that I have nothing against the Tamil song, which personifies the language as a mother. I admire Tamilians for the love they have for their language and always hope Telugu people learn this from them. Now, onto my points.

First of all, for those talking about an insult to Tamil. The Tamil song is sung at state government functions. However, as far as I know the IITs come under the Ministry of HRD, GoI and is not a state government body. So, this argument does not hold.

Next, for those talking about imposition of Hinduism and Sanskrit, I have a longer response. People who still believe Tamil is completely unrelated to Sanskrit or Hinduism are fooling themselves. These are the characters who still stand by the discredited Aryan Invasion Theory. Sanskrit and Hinduism are irrevocably intertwined with India. This guy, Kamal Haasan, who is espousing "Dravidian identity", himself is an Iyengar Brahmin by birth, and get this, has a Sanskrit name. Thus, in both ways he is part of the "ecosystem" from which he is so desperately trying to dissociate himself.

Next, Hinduism is the only major religion that believes in a Mother Goddess. What exactly one names the Goddess is up to one's choice. However, going by the Tamil belief that Tamil was handed down by Murugan (Skanda, Subrahmanya, Kartikeya, whatever you wish to call him, and given that his mother is Parvati, one can safely assume Tamil is a personification of her. Also, Lord Siva is called vAgeesha. So this also supports my theory. The only other name I can think of is of Saraswati, the Goddess of Learning. If anyone believes otherwise I believe he is being delusional. 

All the so-called Dravidian parties and now Kamal Haasan, are basically Tamilian. To my knowledge no other state of south India espouses "dravidianism" as much as some Tamils. They treat Tamil as a pure language that was completely independent of Sanskrit and "Brahmanism". Obviously all these people can be assumed to be extremely proud of the language. I have news for these delusional people. The five great epics of Tamils are (forgive me for the transliteration errors)  silappadikAram, sivaka chintAmani, maNimekhalai, valayapathi and kunDalakesi. Without even getting into the contents of these (I am unaware of these) and names of characters, four out of these five epics have Sanskrit names. One can also refer to videos available of Dr Nagaswamy, a renowned Tamil scholar who again and again debunks the arguments of these dravidian opportunists.

Now, one explanation for the popularity of the dravidian hypothesis is provided by Rajiv Malhotra in his writings. This is one of the many tools employed by the British and missionaries - to subjugate India, and to convert more people to Christianity. Tamil, from outside seems different in some ways. These differences were played up historically to whip up sentiments of Tamils that they were dominated by the so-called Aryans. There are schools of thought that have claimed the Tamil philiosopher Thiruvalluvar to be a disciple of Saint Thomas (whether he ever came to India is a separate debate).

On top of that, broadly speaking, major Indian languages have the same alphabets. I am leaving out certain tribal and north-eastern languages which may have a different origin.

This list can go on and on. So, those Tamil chauvinists who claim Tamilakam (do look that up) is separate from the rest of India, need to get their agendas or sources checked.

References: Works of Rajiv Malhotra - Being Different, Breaking India.

On an angry Hanuman

There has been a recent article in leftist website "The Wire" on an angry Hanuman. This post is based on that.

According to the author Nilanjana Bhowmick, "Hanuman 2.0" is no longer benign but is threatening. She has a problem because people are putting up saffron flags, putting up stickers of Hanuman and are treating Hanuman as a symbol of manhood/machosim. 

I have a few queries for this lady. 

1. Does she have anything to say about fans of our film heroes (particularly relevant today, of Salman Khan) who treat them as heroes and idols? There is a moron who posted a picture on social media of himself with a tied up (killed?) deer saying he supports Salman Khan. Does anyone in our media have the guts to speak out against this kind of blind, stupid idol worship? 

2. Do they have anything to say about overt displays in any other religion? There are places in India where till recently (even now?) police feared to tread because they were dominated by people of a certain faith. Touching them would invite political wrath. Do our "journalists" have the guts to talk about situations like these?

I normally do not support use of derogatory terms like aaptard or presstitute. But, seeing people of late, I am beginning to tilt more and more in favour of using these.

I respect all religions. As a Hindu I have the broadmindedness to accept that there are multiple ways to reach God. I do however have a problem with those that denigrate my religion, and with those who try to convert people. These two activities clearly show the hypocrisy of people who say they respect all religions. As per our seculars, any other religion is free to have overt displays of faith. Hinduism cannot. A few examples of our journalistic hypocrisy:

1. Nobody has a problem if kids carry sharp weapons and hurt themselves in a Muharram procession. They however, have a problem, even if adults carry weapons in a Hindu procession. 

2. Nobody, even PETA or our film stars talk against mass animal slaughter during Id/Christmas celebrations. They however pity dogs during Deepavali. They are against Jallikattu, though this sport does not end with the animal being killed. The animal is in fact worshipped after the event.

3. Income of temples is appropriated by the government. No one has the guts to touch or administer non-Hindu places of worship. Recently, a priest in Kerala who is being investigated for some illegal land transactions had the guts to say that he is behind the purview of Indian law. I am not sure how many secular journalists spoke up against this.

4. Shekhar Gupta has reached the conclusion that Hindus are more likely to defecate in the open. Sagarika Ghose has the ability to tell the faith of a man by seeing his semen.

5. The Supreme Court recently was talking about how flowers in certain temples must be used. Do they have the guts to say the same about other faiths?

6. Under the Right to Education Act drafted by the earlier UPA government, minority institutions are not needed to take in poor students. Why is that so? No wonder, some Lingayats are supporting they being recognised as a minority religion because that will offer them many benefits not available to mainstream Hindus.

7. Manmohan Singh went so far as to say that minorities have the first claim to resources. Did he have the guts to designate Hindus in Kashmir and some parts of the north-east as minorities (they are) and offer them benefits?

The list goes on and on. Let me reiterate that I have no issue, and I should have no issue, with how people of any other faith follow their religion. However, this should not affect people of other faiths. Also, I should not be told by these journalists how to follow my own faith.

Now let me come to Hanuman. Hanuman is not just a bhakta/daasa (I prefer these to servant) of Lord Rama. An analysis of Hanuman's personality, words and actions will offer multiple things we can learn from him. How to speak, self-control, single-mindedness in his quest etc. are all qualities we find in him. He is not a docile, quiet character in the Ramayana. While he does exhibit these qualities, he is terrible against his enemies (not random enmity, but with those who work against Dharma) when roused to action. It is beyond my ability to encapsulate the qualities attributed to Hanuman. However, let me share one sloka from the Sundarakaanda in the Ramayana which encapsulates multiple meanings beautifully.

yathaa raaghavanirmuktah sharah shvasanavikramah

gachchhet tadvad gamiShyaami lankaam raavana paalitaam

I shall go to Ravana-ruled Lanka, like an arrow released by Rama, with wind-like power.

RamabaaNam, the arrow of Lord Rama, is said to be invincible. Once released it will hit the target without fail. It has the ability to return to Rama once its task is achieved. Also, the power of the arrow is not its own, but is that of Rama. Thus Hanuman beautifully says that he will achieve his task and return without fail. He conveys confidence in his strength and ability. At the same time, he attributes this power not to himself, but to Rama. Thus he shows confidence while being humble and without being arrogant. This, you ignorant Nilanjana, is Hanuman.

Many (most?) journalists today have agendas. They want to curry favour with the powers that be. These people in all probability have no clue, and most definitely have not read our holy books. They simply write whatever comes to their mind and suits their agenda without giving any thought to the truth. Today's news is no longer about reporting and letting the audience form their opinions. It is about moulding and conveying the journalists' opinion. Who gave these rights to the journalists? How dare one ask this question! How dare one ask journalists to be informed? How dare one ask journalists to be neutral! 

References:

1. Ramayana discourse by Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma

2. https://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/sundara/sarga1/sundara_1_frame.htm

On misinterpretation of Hinduism, and on Vatapatrasaayi

First, an apology. My knowledge of Sankrit genders is limited. Hence while I will try to present a correct transliteration, those who know better must forgive me for my apses.

There are many reasons that Hinduism is not doing as well as it could be or should be. I will elaborate over a few posts. One simple reason is misinterpretation - either wilful or by mistake.

There have been many who have set out to present Hindu thought to the world - from the old authors of the bhashyaas or commentaries, to the much later colonial Indologists, to the Devdutt Pattanaiks of today's world, to spiritual speakers like Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma and Sri Chaganti Koteswara Rao. The reasons also have been many, genuine intellectual curiosity, intention to make money, to get fame, dissemination of knowledge to seekers, a drive to remove misconceptions etc.

In an open letter to DP that I had written earlier I mentioned how he seemed to be lacking in basic Sanskrit knowledge. Now, reporting what has been read is one thing. However, trying to interpret the basic meaning of Hindu scriptures without the necessary knowledge is like trying to do a surgery by reading a manual - the patient will end up dead.

Knowledge of Sanskrit, while being a necessary and basic prerequisite is not sufficient. To truly interpret and understand the Vedas a person needs to be an expert in the Vedaangaas. There are six of these - shiksha (शिक्षा ), chandas (छन्दस), vyaakaran (व्याकरण), jyotish (ज्योतिष), nirukta (निरुक्त) and kalpa (कल्प). All these are needed to correctly interpret Vedic slokas. 

Further, even words can have multiple meanings.

For example the word go (गो) can mean a cow, the 5 sense organs or even the sun's rays. Thus Govinda (गोविंद) can be a protector of cows (Krishna), ruler of the senses (God) or even the Sun God as he is the Lord of the rays.

Similarly, giri (गिरि) can refer to both slokas of the Veda, and to mountains.

Hence, trying to do a literal interpretation of a Vedic sloka will not give the complete meaning. 

Additionally, Hinduism is rich in symbolism. There is a tale where after the pralaya (प्रलय), i.e. dissolution of creation, only the primordial waters were left. Markandeya is said to have seen Vishnu or Krishna come floating on a banyan tree leaf on these waters. He was in the form of an infant. As infants tend to do, he had his toes and fingers in his mouth. What is the symbolism? We do our actions using the hand. Thus the hand is a symbol of creation. We walk with our legs, which indicate movement. This indicates the movement of this world, what Hinduism calls sthiti (स्थिति) after creation. This is basically a state of maintaining the world as it is. We use the mouth to eat. For the Lord, the mouth indicates where he takes in creation when he decides to end it. Thus it signifies dissolution (I prefer not to use the word destruction). Thus the image of an infant is used to explain the concept of the almighty God who is responsible for creation, maintenance and dissolution.

Now, tell me if any person who does not know about these multiple layers of meanings should ever try to interpret Hinduism!

On idol worship

This is in continuation with my earlier post.

Before writing this post I glanced through a Wikipedia article on idolatry. I would recommend that you read this as well. Broadly speaking Abrahamic religions discourage (some sections, radically and violently) reverence to any physical idol, while Hinduism does not.

When we mention an idol what comes to mind more often than not, is a physical image or portrait that is treated with reverence and to which worship is offered. However, here I want to extend the concept of idol beyond just this over-simplified concept.

Let us first understand why Hindus offer worship to actual physical images. In my earlier post I spoke about Hinduism believing in both saakaara (साकार) and niraakara (निराकार) worship. It allows the devotee to approach God as either with form or without form. It offers that flexibility. Why? For the average human mind it is not possible to visualize a formless, shapeless object of devotion. We are material and physical creatures. We cannot wrap our heads around the concepts of quantum physics which at the end of the day, according to today's scientists are part of our physical, "rational" world. How can one understand and revere something which has no shape or form? This is the reason Hinduism encourages reverence of physical images, to begin with. 

The devotee however, is asked to progress from worship of God with form to the next level, without form. Also, whenever he worships a murti the devotee is asked to understand that the ultimate receiver of this worship is the shapeless and formless parabrahma. 

This is also a reason for the importance giving to the worship of a Sivalingam. I will cover that later.

Another aspect, possibly not known to many is that the murtis in Hindu temples are not necessarily simple images. Any temple worth its name is supposed to have a yantra installed under the main deity. There is a process called praana pratiShtha (प्राणप्रतिष्ठा) through which divine energy is invoked and is asked to enter the yantra and hence the murti. I have read that a mirror placed in front of such an "idol", into which energy has been invoked, will break. Only then is the process said to be complete. I am not sure how many people are left in this world today who can achieve this.

Now let us consider the Abrahamic religions. We have seen how hardline interpreters or Islam have been against what they think is idolatry. Destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas comes to mind immediately. However, as I said earlier even these religions are not above idol worship, at least as far as their own religions and their own concept of God is concerned.

1. Christians, even Protestants pray in front of the cross. Many have a portrait of Jesus in their homes. I believe the Christian concept of God has been influenced by Greek and Roman imagery (old man with white beard etc.).
2. Muslims, of all denominations pray facing Mecca, where the Kaaba is present. This is reverence to a physical image.
3. Many Muslims have verses from the Koran framed and kept in their shops and houses. This is reverence to an image. Many in fact have the number 786, which I understand is a numerical representation of Allah written down.
4. The Parsees worship fire.

Hence, irrespective of religion, an average human being needs some image/imagery using which he can revere God.

Is Hinduism a polytheistic religion?

As mentioned in my earlier post, I will from this post onwards, write occasionally about Hinduism and try to answer some questions that people may have. The words that I put down here are not from my own knowledge. They come from reading and listening to people like Sri Rajiv Malhotra (RM), Sri Chaganti Koteswara Rao garu (CKR), Sri Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma garu (SSS), Paramahamsa Yogananda (PY), Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev (SJV) et al. As always, please feel free to add questions when I post this on Facebook. And as always, I am open to (hopefully constructive) feedback.

I want to put forward certain points on Hinduism that are either not known or are misunderstood. If my writing helps people to better understand and appreciate the culture they are born into, I would be happy with that. Going by certain conventions followed by the aforementioned people, I will mostly refer to Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma, or SD and Judaism, Christianity (the Biblical version) and Islam as Abrahamic Religions, or ARs. For convenience most references will be masculine - he, him etc. Feminine references can be assumed as necessary.

Let me start now. If you were to pick an average Hindu and ask him the question in the blog post title, he would in all probability say yes. He would not be wrong either. Going by SD's own scriptures, the number of gods is 33 million, yes 3.3 crores. Now please note that I did not say Gods with a capital G but gods with a g. 

Most of you may have heard the following sloka.

gururbrahmA gururvishnuh gururdevO maheshwarah

gurussAkShAt parabrahmA tasmai sree guravE namah

गुरुः ब्रह्मा गुरुः विष्णुः गुरुः देवो महेश्वरः 

गुरुः साक्षात्परब्रह्मा तस्मै श्रीगुरवे नमः

This sloka extols the importance of a guru and salutes him. Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara (Siva) are ok. Who is this Parabrahma? This Parabrahma is the true concept of God in SD. According to SD, everything - which includes all gods, this creation, the universe(s) and time - are manifestations of something greater. To give an example, a woman can wear bangles, rings, ear rings, anklets etc. However, all of these will be made out of gold. So the gods that Hindus worship in daily life are but manifestations of this essence and universal consciousness called brahman (not the caste, which is brAhman) but brahman or parabrahma. From this perspective SD is very much monotheistic. ARs think that there is only one God. For SD, EVERYTHING is God. 

This is one reason there is no Satan or purely evil force in SD. There is no need for one. What we perceive as evil is only a different manifestation of what is ultimately God. Now, before you protest, let me state that I will cover this later. So, do let this point rest for now.

ARs also like to think of God as male. Today, only Roman Catholics seem to have some reverence left for Mary. Else, all ARs follow a strictly male God. It is probably blasphemy to think of a Goddess in place of God in ARs. Hindus have gods and goddesses. However brahman is beyond everything. As I mentioned earlier, by definition It cannot be defined and is beyond comprehension. It does not even have a gender. 

So, the obvious question that will come to mind is, what about the 33 million number earlier and why so many? I will answer this by taking another example. Do we not use electricity to power various electrical items like fans, lights, TV etc.? However, is it not the same electricity powering everything? Is not the same potato consumable as chokha, French fries or tikki? As Paramahamsa Yogananda put it, Jesus liked the fatherly aspect of God. So to him God became male. However, to a Ramakrishna Paramahamsa the motherly aspect of God was of supreme interest. So he worshipped Goddess Kali. As SJV puts it, SD is not a religion of believers but one of seekers. A seeker in SD is given the freedom to approach God the way he wishes. SD is a "religion" that allows its followers maximum flexibility. Let us think logically. When a devotee or seeker says that God is infinitely capable, almighty and beyond comprehension by humans, who is this seeker to impose any attribute to God and insist that his interpretation alone is true? By doing this are we not imposing human restrictions on God? This is the true beauty of SD. There are no such restrictions needed. However, to quote RM, SD does not say all paths to God are the same or are of the same merit. This is merely an interpretation.

God in SD is said to be approachable as both with form and without form - sAkAra and nirAkAra. God is to be with attributes and without - saguNa and nirguNa. Here is where "idol" worship comes into the picture. I will cover this shortly. However, the important point is that whenever a Hindu performs his worship, whether it is at home or in a temple he has to remember this parabrahma as the power/essence behind the god or goddess that he is worshipping. All offerings are ultimately to this essence and not just to the god/goddess that is a manifestation of this essence. The ultimate aim of worship is freedom from the cycle of births and union with this parabrahma. I will cover idol worship in my next post.