Who is Guilty?

This is a very special post, that's why it might look very emotional, lengthy, or even over the top, many incidents mentioned here are directly or indirectly from my real-life experience.

Recently I wrote a post about the book Bhagavad Gita As It Is, I discussed a few lines and paragraphs from that book that I found highly objectionable and shallow in their content. I thought those lines were conveying the wrong message to its readers. I received lots of positive as well as negative feedback about this post, on the blog and also on Facebook where I share my all posts. People wondered how come I could not ignore a few comments from the book, many books make these types of comments and people should ignore them. This book is not a novel or any magazine for entertainment purposes, it is one of the religious books which people study, read, and derive their beliefs from. Some said it's a great book because it attracts a lot of devotees from the Western world towards Hinduism (I think most people can become ISKON members after reading this book but not Hindu, as the book is not about Hinduism). Many also advised me that as a Hindu myself, I should feel happy that my religion is spreading in the world because of this book. Some said it was a just small black spot on big white paper, I should look at the white paper, not the black spot. But I disagree with all of them, any religious book, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Qu'ran or their translations or any other book if it preaches hatred or discrimination against women or any section of society should be condemned and exposed in a timely manner otherwise consequences can be disastrous. Many of these small black spots have over time become black pages of our history, for example, untouchability, casteism, Sati Pratha (burning of a woman alive along with her husband after her husband's death), child marriage, forced widowhood, slavery, racial discrimination, and many more things.

I mainly objected to the lines from the book which according to me spread the message of hatred about nonbelievers and treat women as inferior sex compared to men. I have seen enough hatred and women suppression in my life. As a kid, I watched the life of my Nani (my maternal Grandma, in Uttar Pradesh from where I come, we call Nana and Nani to maternal Grandpa and Grandma). She was a great lady, uneducated but with great courage and great devotion towards God. She became a widow at a very young age (maybe 20 or 22), soon after my mother's birth. Society at that time treated widows very kindly but not very fairly. Men after their wife's death could remarry within months, but women were not allowed to remarry. In the event of their husband's death first of all they used to get the blame for that death (bad omen), then widowhood was forced on them. Their heads used to get shaved, and they were only allowed to wear white or any pale-colored clothes, no ornaments, and no makeup (reason: to protect them so that other men don't get attracted towards them). They have to behave as if they are not alive, they used to be there as shadows of their bodies, devoid of any color, any desires, just moving bodies. My Nani at least had a daughter to look after, she devoted all her attention toward her but many are even not that lucky. She was very well respected because of her kind behavior and dedication toward God, she always worked hard. I always saw her doing some work for somebody she never sat quietly as if she didn't know how to rest, as if her life depended on her usefulness in the family. She used to be possessed by a ‘Deity’ or ‘Devi [‘Devi Angat Yene’(in Marathi)] sometimes. [During this condition, the individual completely transforms his or her expression and behavior (personality) to resemble some deity. The person is then supposed (or pretends) to be possessed by a deity during that period. He/she behaves in a convincing manner, making appropriate actions and sounds to appear as if he is in a trance and pretends to know answers to all questions by devotees surrounding her/him]. This still happens in many villages and it is mostly women who do it. I knew this was not the real herself, but I think this was her only chance to command, her only chance to dominate the world around her, her only chance to dictate terms and feel in control of something. She never complained about her situation, she believed it was her fate, and she saw how other widows are treated in society. Her belief in God was unshaken. She was convinced that it was how God wanted them to live, it was how written in the scriptures, what she or people around can do? Nothing, as it was all her fate and her fault. I salute her every time I remember her, it's not easy to live life like that, she is the person who gave me the inspiration to fight against all these malpractices. She and the people around her were not bad, but were hypnotized by centuries of false propaganda about these scriptures, how men are superior to women, how women are to blame for their misfortune, and how women or girl child is a burden on a family.  Their thinking was paralyzed and society was conditioned to think in a particular way. Pundits, many scholars quoted lines from scriptures to authenticate these traditions, to support these beliefs.

She died at the age of ~60, I wonder whether she ever lived her life after her husband's death, she only lived for others after that fateful tragedy. That single incident defined the rest of her life. Sati Pratha was banned decades ago. After the sati ban, a widow was not burned alive after their husband's death but was not allowed to live a normal life either. The widowhood was forced on them. I knew something was wrong, how God can be so cruel to some people for no fault of theirs? But I realized later it was not God, it was God's words, the words from the Vedas, Gita, Bible, Qu'ran, and many other scriptures used to justify these acts. People twisted words, extracted whatever meaning they wanted, gave references from age-old books that have no relevance in today's world, and justified these practices. They gave a divine angle to their desire to rule, desire to use women and other weak sections of society for their benefit. I saw it happening with many other people, including my neighbors, and my sisters, they were suppressed just because they were women. "God made them women and now they should behave and live as God wants women to behave and live, we can't interfere in this, it's God's will," this was the justification offered for these things. We worshiped women in our society, but never asked them if they wanted to get worshiped or not? Qualities like tolerance, patience, selflessness, and dedication are good, but they were forced on women so that they won't be able to even protest where it's necessary to protest. Their wings were clipped so they couldn't fly and after some time they forgot that they could fly also. They started believing it was not meant for them. People of my generation who lived in Indian villages and even in some cities must have seen many women like this, and I hope they understand what I am talking about.

The reason why I am so sensitive towards such comments about women or weaker sections of society lies in all these experiences. I can understand Dr. Ambedkar's anger when he said 'I was born as a Hindu but will never die as a Hindu'. I can understand when in spite of being a woman she doesn't want to give birth to a girl child, even willing to kill her, she is scared to bring her into this world, did we ask why?. It's not only her who is responsible for this, it's the society, it's the years of discrimination, it's the justification of male dominance and preference, and the belief that women are inferior to men, and yes, holy books, they have their share in this crime too. If these books get the credit for all the good things which are in our society, these books should share the blame for these bad practices also. This prejudice and fear are deeply rooted in society, unless we remove this we cannot stop any of the above, laws can only be effective to a limited extent, and we need to reform the thinking of society. 

This article is not against Hinduism or any society, culture, or country. I was born in a Hindu family and lived my most of life in India, that's why most experiences are from there. India is my motherland, a beautiful place, and a lovely country. I am sure people from other religions and countries must have faced or seen similar situations in their lives and might have felt similar pain. A lot of things have changed now, and the situation is now much more improved in urban areas of India but still, a lot needs to be done, and we cannot allow the wheels of time to go backward by neglecting such texts, as you never know which holy book might become authoritative in future and people start following it.

It is not only about my grandma and her life, but it is about the countless women (and other social classes like untouchables) who suffered and are still suffering because of this prejudice. We all can point fingers at each other, each generation will point the finger at its previous generation and say they started it, we just followed. I am sure this long trail of blame will end with some person (or a group of people) who twisted the meaning of texts to preach their own philosophy or even they might point their finger at some book, whose authors we are not sure about, they are long dead and that book can't defend itself, so who is guilty here?. Are those women guilty, just because they were born as a woman? Is society guilty, which watched this happening and even participated in crime actively? Are those males guilty who believe that women are inferior to them? Are we guilty who still can't convince people to correct mistakes if they find them in the scriptures or in any holy book? The book becomes important because of its readers, and the movement becomes popular because of its followers, so we all are part of this crime, and we cannot escape the blame.  Now it's our chance to rectify it, so let's not make the same mistake.

If people can't understand after reading the reason behind my reaction to certain lines from "Bhagavad Gita as it is" then they may never understand it. I share my views on the blog, so I thought I should also share the reason behind those views. It's a very long post, but the topic is very important and close to my heart. Thanks for reading and for your patience, please share your views.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Satya Sai Baba: Guru or magician?

Exactly one year before (in 2011) on this day Satya Sai Baba died  (April 24^th) and as expected news of his death made headlines in almost all Indian national newspapers and websites. Even foreign news channels took notice of his death they called him a Hindu Godman. 

Satya Sai Baba was a unique personality according to me, a man with noble intentions, but trapped in his own image. One can find many people, especially in India who believe that he was god, the incarnation of Shirdi wale Sai Baba, they believe his magic tricks were real, and at the same time may people criticize him for fooling innocent people by showing cheap tricks and taking advantage of their devotion (I am one of them). I don’t believe in his magic tricks and also criticized him for using those tricks to gain popularity. Recently when I listened to his speeches and some of his interviews, I realized that whatever message he wanted to give to his followers was really sensible and useful. He never preached any religion or started any society rather he encouraged his devotees to keep their original faiths, he told about the importance of love and how love is the ultimate thing, not to hurt anybody, and many things like that. Many of his teachings are really wonderful and relevant in today’s world where we see hatred and jealousy as major problems. Even many people who follow him don’t seem to be interested in the real meaning of his messages. I think they were overwhelmed by his personality and were amazed because of his tricks. They felt happy that they saw God’s avatar and felt relieved to share their grievances with him. They also believed that he would solve all their problems with his divine power. After all, who else can solve all human problems if God himself can't. They thought his magic tricks were possible because of his divine power. In this entire process, the real message given by him got lost and what remained was his magic and God-like personality for his devotees. 

Satya Sai Trust established by him has done some philanthropic work by setting up many educational institutes and medical centers for poor people. I think because of his devotees and fear of losing them continued with his magic tricks. Tricks like producing ash, diamond rings, expensive Rolex watches, and gold ornaments from thin air became part of his identity. Whenever people attended his gathering/satsang they expected some trick from him and I think he was very well aware of that and had to live up to his image and satisfy his devotees' expectations. This happens with many famous personalities, they get trapped in some public image and people (their devotees or fans) always want to see them in that role, doing the same thing over and over again. People don’t allow them to break that mold. 

Hopefully, people will move away from the argument about whether Satya Sai Baba’s magic tricks were genuine or not (they weren't)? Whether he was an incarnation of Sai Baba or not (he wasn't)? I think all know the real answers to these questions. People will remember his message and teaching which are definitely more important than any of his tricks.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Bhagavad Gita-As it is or As it is NOT

"There are two classes of men, namely the devotee and the demon" This is what Prabhupada writes about nonbelievers in the book Bhagavad Gita As It Is. The book is a translation and commentary by Prabhupada who was the founder of the International Society of Krishna Consciousnesses (ISKON). This book is one of the many translations of the Bhagavad Gita available in English and has been translated into almost 60 or more languages. In complete editions of this book (almost 900 pages), for each verse from Gita, includes the verse in the Devanagari script, a Latin transliteration, word-for-word meanings (Sanskrit-English), and English translation of the verse. This is followed by extensive commentary by Prabhupada for most of the verses (purport). This book is extensively distributed by ISKON and is a central theme of their teachings and beliefs. ISKON members also believe this book to be authoritative and literally true. I started reading this book when I was looking for a reliable translation of the Gita in English because my Sanskrit knowledge is very limited. A lack of knowledge of the Sanskrit language should not be a hindrance to studying and understanding most of the Vedic knowledge today. There are many translations of these works available in English and many other languages, and many of them are from very reliable sources, one can read them and compare to get the essence of the Vedic teachings (or any ancient philosophy).

This book was recently in the news; a group linked to the Christian Orthodox Church had demanded a ban on this book. They claimed that the text was "extremist" literature full of hatred and insult to nonbelievers which promoted social discord. The case had drawn a flurry of criticism from Hindus across the world, even the Indian parliament took note of this case and expressed its concern over the "ban on Gita." Russian court finally dismissed that petition seeking a ban (a proper decision according to me). But I was not surprised to see the news of requesting a ban on this book. I am personally against banning any book or article or movie etc. Somehow India (even though a democracy) has a history of banning books that carry some sensitive matters against some religion or iconic figures (like Gandhi, Ambedkar, Shivaji Maharaj, popular politicians, religious leaders, etc.). The list of banned books includes The Satanic Verses, The Polyester Prince, Shivaji-The Hindu King in Islamic India, and more. I decided to study this book to see what people found 'extremist' or 'full of hatred' in this book. My expectation was that Bhagavad Gita should not be extremist or full of hatred book, people can agree or disagree with things mentioned in Bhagavad Gita, but this is true with any religious scripture. So I was wondering how come people got this impression (that it propagates hatred) from its translation and that too translation by a person who founded the ISKON which claims to teach Bhakti, love, and non-violence, and does some great philanthropic activities.

From the preface itself, I started to feel the aggressive tone of the author and his total dismissal of other works in the same field. Prabhupad writes “Before my presentation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, almost all the English editions of Bhagavad-gita were introduced to fulfill someone’s personal ambition.” I have nothing against aggressive tones or authors praising their own work, but dismissing others' work totally without any substantial evidence is arrogance without any substance, even great scientists or Nobel laureates don’t have a such attitude towards their competitors. He further writes “Unfortunately, mundane wranglers have taken advantage of Bhagavad-geeta to push forward their demonic propensities and mislead people”

This was just the beginning as I read more, I found many more views like this expressed in this book. As I said, nothing wrong in praising your own work, or highlighting good aspects of your philosophy/ideology, but I don’t think it’s right to demean your fellow writers like this. Let’s see what views are expressed about women in the book,

Prakriti is female, and she is controlled by the Lord just as the activities of a wife are controlled by the husband. I am sure many husbands wish that this was true :) now let's look at his other comment about women.

In purport of Text 1.40 (chapter 1, verse 40) he writes,

“As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Chanakya Pandiita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varnäsrama system. On the failure of such varnäsrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population.”

Seriously? Are you kidding me? In what way women are more prone to degradation than men? On what basis, he agrees with the opinion that they are not very intelligent and trustworthy? Prabhupad might have had some bad experiences with women in his life, but that doesn’t give him the right to pass a general comment like this about all women, that too in a book where he claims to teach Gita as it is. I am surprised that feminists are not up with arms against these statements, maybe they think it's not worth their attention.

Now let’s see what he writes about nonbelievers of his philosophy,

Purpot of Text 3.3

There are two classes of men, namely the devotee and the demon. There are a number of editions of this great book of knowledge. Some of them have commentaries by the devotees, and some of them have commentaries by the demons. Commentation by the devotees is real, whereas that of the demons is useless.

(So the world is conveniently divided into two type of people, one who believes in his teachings and philosophy and others DEMONS, very kind way to address your fellow human beings)

Purport of Text 3.4

That Krishna is the supreme authority is accepted by the whole world, not only at present but from time immemorial, and the demons alone reject Him.

(text 3.5) a nondevotee or a demon cannot understand this transcendental nature. Consequently these descriptions in the Gita cannot be understood by demonic brains.

If this is not Hatred of nonbelievers, then I wonder what it is? World demon is used for nonbelievers (even for other translators of Bhagavad Gita), it appears many times describing nonbelievers in this purport and also at different places in the book.

I can go on like this; there are many sentences in the book, which will make one wonder, whether the author wants to teach love or hatred toward other communities? How come the Indian Government which is so sensitive towards religious feelings didn't find this book offensive towards those who don’t believe in Krishna and his superiority? The objection (or demand of ban) was not on Bhagavad Gita as it was projected in media, but was on this book which is more than 90% purports by Prabhupad but the book claims to tell us the real meaning of Bhagavad Gita (very clever marketing trick). It’s the purports, which constitute most of the book in its complete edition (>90%). The translation part given in this book is good and mostly comparable with all other translations of Gita, but his interpretation of Gita verses in Prabhupad’s purports is the real problem. He propagates his own views and ideas in the name of Gita very aggressively (and does the same thing for which he blamed others). I request the readers of my blog to read the book themselves and decide if I am right or wrong. It's definitely not Gita as it is but what Prabhupada wants it to be, his purports spoil this book completely. This book is not only about the Gita, but it’s mostly a promotion of the Hare Krishna movement’s cult beliefs. Hopefully, the real Bhagavad Gita doesn't teach such a fundamentalist sectarian narrow view, but if I am wrong please correct me.

Thanks a lot for reading and please share your comments. 

Links:

1. http://vedabase.net/bg/ (for Bhagavad Gita- As it is)

2. http://breaking-free.info/2012/11/25/anything/

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Which way to go - mono, poly or atheism?

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one God exists. Most religions believe in the existence of God and describe God as a changeless, formless, ever-perfect, all-capable entity. It’s good to see that there is some common thread between all these philosophies.  Most religions, even believe that God is a creator of our universe, but then they face conflict with the theory of evolution (if it was a perfect creation, then how come we are evolving, and if it was not then how come God can create something imperfect). Our world is continuously evolving, and things look perfect only if you look with respect to the era they existed. Dinosaurs fit perfectly in the era they lived and then the time came when they became extinct. I think now we understand that it's not God who makes some species go extinct or causes some natural disaster, or causes suffering, so many factors contribute to it. The term ever-perfect doesn’t exist, whatever is perfect today may not be perfect tomorrow as every living creature evolves.

Some religions believe there is only one creator or superpower who controls everything in this universe (monotheism). Hinduism is known for idol worship and for having many Gods (polytheism). We humans have the unique gift of imagination and this unique quality differentiates us from other animals. Once people started believing in the concept of God they used their imagination to give it some form, shape, and image. It was the obvious next step, as we humans like to be creative and bring our imaginations into reality. All these images of God are created by various artists, they are not photographs or portraits or any real person. People see what they want to see in them in those images. In India there are many forms of Gods, I think once India's population was less than or equal to the number of Gods which they believe in. We like to have choices in our lives, I think people thought, why not have choices when it comes to selecting our own God. Polytheism is like a vending machine from which one can choose whichever God he/she likes and worship that god, many options are available and the choice is yours. If people don't see anything wrong in worshiping God as a formless entity, equally it should be OK if anyone wants to worship it in some form. If people want, everyone can have their own God or create a new god if they are not satisfied with the current choices. I don't see any difference between monotheism and polytheism, once you are a theist then it doesn't matter whether you believe in one God or many gods. The problem starts when people want to force their choice of God on others.

The argument about God's real form or existence/nonexistence is useless as it's endless and doesn't lead to any conclusion. Expecting the whole world to believe in one religion, one God, and one book is as insane as to expect all countries to merge and become one country ruled by one leader. This will never happen. So why don’t we concentrate on teachings that help us to realize the inner truth and try to solve our difficulties, that was the whole purpose of introducing God and religion, to unite people and teach kindness and love but many people are doing exactly opposite. 

I know many people who don't believe in any religion or God (atheist). They live a very noble, happy, and peaceful life without being part of any religion or using any single book as a source of ultimate knowledge. For some reason, almost every religion doesn't say very kind words about nonbelievers of that religion and atheists. Atheism and related philosophies are very attractive options available for people who don't want to associate themselves with any religion or don't believe in the existence of God. It's interesting to see that the percentage of non-religious people is growing very fast in the developed world.


Once we know our destination, we can choose whatever path we like to reach there, all these books (scriptures) and philosophies are like flashlights, only to help us, some people need them and some don't. Monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or whatever you want to choose, doesn't matter, don’t worry who is using which flashlight let them find their own way. It's our right to choose our path and find our way, let's respect each other's choices and continue the journey. Which path we take is not that important, as we can change it anytime. It’s the journey of self-discovery which is special and everyone’s journey is unique and interesting, so value the journey. God as an external entity is the result of our imagination and our imagination doesn't have any limits. Humans will keep on producing new Gods or their avatars as long as the human race exists. So, make your choice, change if you don't like it, leave others to do the same, and enjoy the journey. 

Thanks for reading. Your comments are welcome.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Krishna-Part-II

There are many facets of Krishan's personality that attract me. I think Krishna lived his life in the present without worrying about the future, he didn't reject or get attached to anything. He lived his life as it presented itself, accepted whatever came his way, and didn’t try to run away from anything, let it be love, mischief, embarrassment, war, politics, wickedness, criticism, or even death. He enjoyed his life to the fullest and remained calm and cheerful during most of the epic, even during the war. 

Krishna not only preaches the theory of Karma in Mahabharat but he is also an ideal example of it. He accepted the consequences of all his actions without any complaint. War was not the result of his actions; he was not responsible for starting the war. But still, at the end of the war, Gandhari (Duryodhan's mother) blamed him for not doing enough to prevent the war and killing her 100 sons. Without getting into arguments, he listened to her patiently. She cursed him that his family would also meet the same fate and everyone would get killed like her sons. He accepted her curse without any complaint as he knew that some of his actions during the war were responsible for her pain and suffering. He is the perfect example of the theory of Karma, everyone including him has to face the consequences of their actions (good or bad). No one should escape the result of their actions. One can see the shades of all traits found in human nature in Krishna's personality, he is all-inclusive, and maybe that's why the Mahabharat gives him the status of god.  The Kuru army was much stronger than the Pandav army and Krisha had to use tricks, magic, and deceit on Pandava's behalf to defeat them. Mahabharat teaches us many lessons like, just being on the right side doesn't guarantee victory we have to earn it, we should not underestimate our enemy at any stage, evil is not always weak and every action will produce its results, sooner or later.

In the epic, he is seen as a reliable friend, lover, clever politician, cunning and ruthless war strategist, intelligent foreign policymaker, spiritual guru, peacemaker, etc. He is the one powerful character in the story who can dictate the course of events using his charm, intelligence, and if necessary, force. He was the one who protected Pandavas whenever they were in danger and needed his help, but failed to protect his own family from destruction. He is the person who fights with the king of Gods, Indra, to save the villagers of Vrindavan from Indra's wrath by lifting Govardhan mountain and this is the same Krishna who is accidentally killed by a hunter in the forest. He did not die a heroic death of the warriors; he died like any other creature in the forest.  

I think he is the one among all Gods to whom humans can relate very easily and this might be the reason for his popularity. We all see parts of Krishna (and many other characters from Mahabharat) in us at different stages of our lives. That is why I like this story as we can easily relate to it. It's impossible to understand Mahabharat completely without understanding all aspects of Krishna's personality; he is the heart and soul of this epic. It would have been easy for the authors of Mahabharat to make Krishna a perfect and ideal God, who always upholds dharma and uses his unlimited powers to achieve his goals, but they didn't. They preferred to give us a character that is very much like all of us, with many limitations. They showed us how dharma is subtle and many times it's difficult to differentiate right from wrong. As I wrote in one of my previous posts, we all face situations in real life like Arjun's dilemma at the beginning of the war and many times wish to have someone like Krishna to advise us.

I don’t think two or even ten posts are enough to describe Krishna's character completely. I may keep coming back to him in my future posts whenever it's necessary but for right now I will stop here and would like readers to study and understand all aspects of his character, maybe it will help us to live our lives in a better way.

Thanks for the reading and please share your thoughts.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Krishna: Man or God? (Part I)

Arguably Krishna is the most complex character from the epic Mahabharat. I have been fascinated by the complexity of Krishna’s character since my college days. He is a multidimensional character; one can see all shades of human nature in this single character. There are many characters in Mahabharat who display one or two traits of human nature brilliantly, but in Krishna's character, one can see everything, all in one, that's why people often think who is he? God or human? A hero or villain? In Mahabharat Krishna is present as God himself, he is the incarnation of Vishnu, book seems to be clear about the divinity of his character. But in the story, not all his actions match with his character of God. In fact, to many, his character may seem to have a dual personality, one who preaches the highest morality and another who doesn't hesitate to use the dirtiest tricks to win the war or kill the opponent. His presence was essential for Pandava’s victory in the war. Krishna didn’t fight in war using any weapon but he was the brain behind Pnadava’s war strategy and played a key role in killing all the commanders-in-chiefs of the Kuru army. Despite all his faults and mistakes almost all the characters in the Mahabharat admire him. His popularity has grown over time even after people know all these contradictions about him. Krishna is one of the most popular Gods in India; maybe he has the most number of followers among all Gods in India.

Krishna tried his best to avoid war, he even made a very generous offer to Duryodhan on behalf of Yudhishthir (to give him just five villages instead of half of the kingdom). He tried very hard to convince Duryodhan that war was not good for both sides but he failed. Once his all attempts to avoid war failed.  Once war was declared, he believed in winning the war at any cost. He believed that Pandava’s cause was right and the only thing that mattered to him was their victory. It’s not unusual for a hero to win the battle using cunning ways there are many examples in history, but we don’t expect this type of behavior from God. If God is all-powerful and all knowledgeable then why can't he fight the war by fair means? That means in epic he is also a human or God is not omnipotent (all-powerful). Actually, Mahabharat shows us many instances where it challenges the concept of an omnipotent God. 

During the war, we see an altogether different side of Krishna, his darker side is exposed during crucial moments of war. He wanted Pandavas to win and was ready to pay any price for that. He has to use all his charm, power, and intelligence from the first day of war itself. First, he has to use his power as a God to convince Arjun to fight the war. He has to reveal his divine nature to Arjun to convince him that whatever he is saying is the right thing (Bhagavad Gita was delivered in this process).  He is also seen as an opportunist who teaches an honest man (Yudhisthir) to tell a lie (about the death of Ashwathnama), the only lie he told in his all life. He even advises hesitant Arjun to strike down Karna, when Karna was in a helpless and defenseless state. Because of these acts as the war progresses and the Kuru army’s commanders fall one by one, we somehow begin to sympathize with Kauravas. Even Duryodhan before dying on the battlefield lists Krishna’s many misdeeds during the war and accuses him of not fighting fairly. People might think that the end result of his actions justified the means he used, but I don't think Krishna thought like that. After winning the war, Krishna who is cheerful throughout the epic becomes serious and gives a very sobering message to the victorious Pandavas, he says that the Kauravas were great warriors and they could not have defeated them in a fair fight, that is why he had to use magic and deceit on their behalf. It seems that the epic’s morality is subordinate to Krishna, the God.  

Many Critics and intellectuals have studied his character in very much detail but these books are not very popular in the general public as they put you in a very uncomfortable position. Krishna's role in Mahabharat forces us to confront a moral dilemma. It puts us in a difficult situation, where it’s difficult to differentiate between good and bad. Both sides in war engage in good, bad, and even ugly deeds and there is greatness on both sides. Krishna's character is also like that, it contains shades of all characters in the epic. Krishna is Karna, Arjun, Yudhisthir, Bhishma, Shakuni, and Drona all in one. One must accept all sides of Krishna, no matter how contrasting they are. But people divided his personality into many pieces, took the piece that they liked or were comfortable with, and neglected all other aspects. Some only accepted him as an adorable child, some were happy with his raas leelas, some took his image as a lover, some wanted only his Bhagavad Gita, and some saw him as a villain and criticized him for his actions during the war. Many bhakti movements only accept him in portions and present only a one-dimensional image of him. They glorify only certain aspects of Krishna's personality and keep mum or give some vague explanations about other aspects which they are not comfortable with. As I said, one can find whatever they want in his personality, so all these movements have taken bits and pieces of his personality and used them to propagate their own philosophies. I feel this is a great tragedy that people never tried to accept and understand him totally.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

What are desires?

We all constantly battle with our desires and, many times don't know how to deal with them. After all, what are desires? Why do they come to us? From where do they come? How to deal with them? Is it bad to have too many desires? Are there good desires and bad desires? There are so many questions like this related to just one subject 'DESIRE'. A desire is defined as a 'conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment'. They are supposed to bring happiness upon their fulfillment, that's why we chase them. But if we can't fulfill them then the same desires bring unhappiness and depression in our lives. Most of the time whatever good or bad things happen to us are blamed on our desires. Desire is one of the strong motivators for our actions. The motivational aspect of desire has been very well documented in philosophy, human desire is considered a fundamental motivation for most human actions.

Our culture and general education are supposed to train our brains to differentiate between good desires and bad (or amoral or unethical) desires. We get trained to differentiate between them but no one can stop them from coming to our mind. Desires come to us automatically, it's a natural phenomenon. They don’t ask for our permission before entering our minds. Since our entry into this world knowingly or unknowingly we desire something or the other. We desire for food when we are hungry, sleep when we are tired, and water when we are thirsty, even our basic needs are also linked with our desires. Generating desires is a sign of an active and functional brain or mind. People in an unconscious state or in a coma though alive don't desire anything because their mind is not in active state.

Path of renunciation blames our desires for all material attachments, according to Buddha we should cut the flow of our desires to achieve liberation. But how to cut the flow of desire? To stop desiring (or not to have any desire) itself is a desire, so technically we can not have a desire-free stage. Our mind is such that it likes to move around, it's curious about many things. We have physical needs and mental or psychological needs, we need to fulfill both of them to live a healthy life. It's also true that there is no limit to desires, they are endless, and they keep on coming. Our needs are limited but our desires are endless. I think the best way to deal with desires is to let them come and learn to deal with them. If we try to suppress or resist them then they will bounce back with stronger force (like Newton’s third law every action has an equal and opposite reaction). We can ignore them if we feel they are unwanted desires, or even store them somewhere in the deep closet of our mind and eventually, they will get lost or go away. Active desires need constant attention, they overpower our mind, take total control over it, and then start dictating our behavior. Therefore, we should be in control of our desires, they should not control us.

If our mind is at peace and full of good thoughts then only good desires will come to our mind because bad desires won't find any attention and if they do, they won't survive long. I think the stage of ultimate happiness is not when you are free from all desires but when you have total control over them. You neither resist them nor run after them, they come and go like people around you. We meet many people in our life but not all of them become good friends, desires are like that, we get many of them but not all stay with us, it's up to us to decide, the choice is always ours. If we learn to do this, then we can learn to live our lives with thankfulness and enthusiasm.

Thanks for reading and your comments are always welcome.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Karna and his fight with destiny

For me, Karna is one of the two most exciting and complex characters from the epic Mahabharat. If anyone matches the complexity of Krishna’s character I think it’s Karna’s character. The story of his birth is also very interesting. He was born to Kunti much before her marriage to Pandu when she accidentally invoked Surya to test the boon given to her by sage Durvasa. It was too late when she discovered that boon really worked and was left with an unwanted child. Ashamed of the baby and scared about social reactions she set the infant afloat on the river praying for his safety. This baby was picked up by Adhiratha, a childless charioteer, he and his wife Radha raised this child like their own son.  He had inborn attributes, his earrings (hence the name Karna) and breastplate which make him invincible. 

Karna’s official entry in the epic is also very dramatic. He enters the public arena as a stranger where sons of Pandu and Dhritarashtra are displaying their martial arts skills. He openly challenges Arjuna and even claims that he can put a better show of skills than Arjuna, and to everyone’s surprise, this stranger fulfills his promise. Then he challenges Arjuna for a duel and from here his conflict with Pandavas begins. Kripacharya, the match referee asks Karna to reveal his identity to confirm his lineage as it seems only Kshatriya can fight with another Kshatriya. Karna’s face fades, this was not the first time his lineage blocked his way.  Mahabharat takes place in a very feudal society, where social status or lineage matters a lot. Karna faced this problem of lineage when he tried to become a student of Drona and also when his Guru Parashuram cursed him for not disclosing his true caste identity. Kunti his biological mother recognizes him as her abandoned son but doesn’t show enough courage to accept him. Bhima insults him as ‘sutaputra’ just because he is a mere charioteer’s son. He stands there as a defenseless victim questioning whether a person's social position should be defined by birth or by the talent they possess. Duryodhana seizes this opportunity and comes to rescue him as he sees that this warrior might come in handy in his fight against Pandavas. A similar incident is repeated many years later in the Kuru assembly where Draupadi gets insulted when Dushasana drags her into the assembly and tries to disrobe her. Karna was also disrobed in public, not literally but the way he got insulted because of his lineage is like getting disrobed in public. In both cases, the victim was targeted for no fault of theirs. If Kauravas had been victorious in war I am sure Karna's insult would have been equivalent to Draupadi's vastraharan.

I am not trying to justify any of Karna’s future actions like his role in Draupadi's insult or killing of Abhimanyu or his loyalty towards Duryodhana. Karna made some mistakes in his life and got punished for each of them. Karna's story is a story of double standards in our society. He was wronged by his teachers, mother, brothers, friends, seniors (Bhishma), and even by Gods (Indra).

Krishna tried to persuade Karna to switch sides by offering him the kingdom by disclosing his true identity as the eldest son of Kunti. Karna not only denied his offer but even requested Krishna to keep the truth about his true identity a secret till his death. Krishna didn’t try to deliver something like Bhagavad Gita to Karna as he knew that Karna didn’t need it. I think most of the celebrated warriors from the Kuru army already understood the principle of Nishkam Karma from Gita, they did their duty without worrying about the results or the end product. I think every one of them knew what their destiny was and even had an opportunity to change it but they didn’t. One can not understand Mahabharat and its characters if we assume in the beginning that one side is right and the other is wrong. It’s not a simple story of victory of hero over villain, but it's a tale of continuous tussle between right and wrong attributes, they are not associated with any particular side or character and there is no clear winner. 

Karna is one of my favorite characters from Mahabharat.  He refused to give up even after so many setbacks and defeats, stood by his friend till the end, fulfilled his promises, and fought against all the odds even after realizing that he couldn't win. He made mistakes and paid for them, at the end of his life his slate was clear, he didn't owe anything to anybody. Even people who killed him and hated him came to pay homage after his death because of his bravery, honesty, and loyalty. For me, he will always remain a symbol of a person's fight with his destiny.

Thanks for reading and your comments are welcome.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Ashtavakra Gita: A Hidden treasure

While surfing on the net to search for some information about mythology-related topics I stumbled on Ashtavakra Gita accidentally. I never heard about this book before. Almost everyone (at least in India) knows or at least heard about the Bhagavad Gita and many other scriptures (like Ramayan, Mahabharat, Vedas, Upanishads, etc.), but I never heard about this book from anybody. When I read this book (an English translation, as the original book is in Sanskrit) I wondered why no one ever mentioned this to me. Even in today’s Hindu religion this book doesn't have an equal status like Bhagavad Gita and others and believe me it deserves to be right there with all these books. I think it’s largely ignored because of its simplicity and straight-to-the-point approach. It doesn't give any promises, doesn't have any interesting characters, supernatural powerful creatures, an engaging storyline, no scope for any interpretation, not attributed to any celebrated author. It’s also a very short text compared to other scriptures and delivers its message directly without any complications.

There is no doubt that this work is very old, maybe older than Mahabharat and Ramayan. It’s not that this work was not known or studied but somehow it always remained underutilized and ignored by the masses and popular bhakti movements. It was appreciated, and quoted by Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Osho as well as some other scholars like Radhakrishnan refer to it with great respect.

This text documents the dialogue between King Janaka of Mithila and sage Ashtavakra. In the first verse itself, King Janaka asks an important question that troubles most people “How is one to acquire knowledge? How is one to attain liberation? And how is one to reach dispassion?” and the discussion starts from there. As I said no formalities, no drama straight to the point. This Gita explains in very simple terms what knowledge is, how to attain liberation, and other stuff. This book is not about any religion, not about any God or its superpowers, and doesn't threaten you or promise you any incentives but I think still it's very effective. It's so simple in its approach that it makes you think about why other texts try to deliver a similar message in a much more complicated way. I think we love complicated stuff that's why other books are so popular compared to this one. 

The Ashtavakra Gita says that one is already free once one realizes one is free.

You are the one witness of everything and are always completely free. The cause of your bondage is that you see the witness as something other than this. (1.7)

If you see yourself as a witness of things, not as a doer or beneficiary of your actions then life becomes simple (for people who are troubled by their actions and attachments).    

If one thinks of oneself as free, one is free, and if one thinks of oneself as bound, one is bound. Thinking makes it so. (1.11)

So to be free or to be attached all is in our hands, no book or Guru can help us in this unless we help ourselves. He doesn't say to pay anybody or beg for mercy with any superpower as we are that power who can make ourselves free. That's why no organized religion touches this text as there is nothing to sell, this book is not offering any product like god or religion to sell.

The book also talks about renunciation, attachment, and detachment. The book talks about a desireless person in the following verse,

Those who desire pleasure and those who desire liberation are both found in this world, but the person who desires neither pleasure nor liberation is rare indeed. (17.5)

There is no meaning in accepting or rejecting any religion or any material things. It explains the futility of doing these things, people may think that he is trying to preach atheism in the following verses, 

It is only the noble-minded who is free from attraction or repulsion to religion, wealth, sensuality, and life and death too. (17.6)

A fool often shows aversion towards his belongings, but for him, whose attachment to the body has dropped away, there is neither attachment nor aversion. (18.62)

About places like heaven and hell, the book says,

There is neither heaven nor hell nor even liberation during life. In a nutshell, in the sight of the seer, nothing exists at all. (18.80)

about dispassion he says,

The dispassionate man does not praise the good or blame the wicked. Content and equal in pain and pleasure, he sees nothing that needs doing. (18.82)

I am not going to discuss the whole book here, I just wanted to introduce it to readers of my blog. It’s a good book to read (not sacred or anything), my recommendation is just to read it once and then see if it suits your needs or not. I found this one to be the most direct and straightforward among all the scriptures I read. I don’t say that follow everything written in this book (and I don’t say this about any other book either), just take what you feel is relevant to you and leave the rest. I can assure you that if you are looking for answers to questions about life and its meaning, liberation, etc. you won’t regret reading it.

Thanks for reading and please share your views.

Reference:

http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0004.htm (I used this translation in my post)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtavakra_Gita

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing) 

Is casteism racism?

Casteism is a very sensitive topic in India. Many Indians claim that it doesn't exist in today's Indian society, but we still have cast caste-based reservation policy, inter-cast marriages are still not very well accepted, and many more things like this indicate that caste and caste discrimination still exists. I often wonder how it all started? Is casteism any different form of racism? Was there any need to divide society into different sections and label them? Should our profession decide our social status? If we say all humans are equal then why do we discriminate? I already discussed how religion divides us but within the same religion also we find many ways to discriminate against each other. Interesting, isn't it?

There are different theories for the origin of castes in India. There are religious, biological, and socio-historical theories about its origin. Religious theory is most popular and many people (who still practice casteism) like to believe that there is some religious significance attached to their superior or inferior social status based on their caste.

The social division of ancient Indian society into four sections can be traced back to Manusmriti. The book is in the form of a discourse given by Manu to a group of seers. Manu is considered as ‘progenitor of mankind’ (I think Moses is a similar character in Abrahamic religions). This text became the standard reference for all future related texts (or Dharmashastras). When the social division was originally created in four sections or varnas (Vaishya, Brahman, Kshudra, and Kshatriya) to run the society smoothly I believe there was no hierarchy or they were not ranked in any particular order. Every section’s work or job was equally important in the functioning of society. Varnas or these professions were not inherited but were acquired by merit. I think the original intention of this division might have been noble, but it allowed the division of society which resulted in different groups, that ultimately became casts that started caring for their own interests rather than caring for society and its welfare. It turned out that the side effect of medicine was more harmful than the benefit it offered.

I would like to believe that any religion in its original form doesn’t teach any type of discrimination within or outside that religion. So-called intellectuals got special status in society (because of their knowledge); this status also gave them some powers and privileges. They failed to realize the responsibility that came with that special status. Selfishness and greed prevented them from implementing the actual code of conduct which was recommended (selection by merit not by birth). They wanted to hold on to that power so that their future generations also enjoy the same status and privilege. The only way to stop others from getting empowered was to inhibit their ability to acquire knowledge. This was achieved by creating rigid boundaries between sections of societies (or varnas) that were difficult to cross. They manipulated the meaning of scriptures and misused their superior social status for this. As generations passed, they gradually started feeling more superior or privileged than others and eventually, they started believing that it’s their birthright to rule others and they started exploiting certain sections of society for their benefit. This resulted in the caste system, untouchability, social discrimination, and inhuman treatment of so-called lower cast people. According to me it's not in any way different than racism. This mentality hampered the human progress of Indian society for centuries. In similar manure, women from all casts were suppressed and forced to live a very restricted life, to me it looks like they created a separate caste named 'women' and no one even realized this. That is why I raised the question in the beginning, was it necessary to divide society like this based on professions? Today also we see this type of mentality in our society, even after achieving so much progress in all fields we are unable to get rid of this mentality totally.

Discrimination in some form exists even today in almost all societies or countries in the world, in some countries, it's based on caste or religion, and in some countries based on race, color, nationality, etc. Casteism or any sort of discrimination is against humanity. Nature doesn’t discriminate based on caste, color, or race. This monster of discrimination has survived too long and some elements of our society are still protecting it for some unknown reason. Any type of discrimination should not have any place in civilized society. Let's pledge not to discriminate against anyone based on color, religion, nationality, or anything else.

Thanks for reading. Your views and comments are welcome.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)