Subbuji's blog

To my great delight, I discovered Subbuji's website/blog on sulekha.

To the uninitiated, Subbu-ji (Shri V Subrahmanian) was an active contributor to the advaitin mailing list, with many great posts to his credit. Most notably, he posted a series on Dakshinamurthy Stotram of Shri Adi Shankaracharya, which I have linked to earlier in this blog.

Some time back, he unsubscribed himself from the list. I like to think that he took a sabbatical:)

A couple of days back, I discovered that He has a website. Here is the link. There is lot of wisdom in the pages. Read and progress!




Read the rest of this entry >>

Description of Ambarisha's bhakti

Srimad Bhagavatham: 9.4.18 - 9.4.20

sa vai manaH kR^iShNapadAravindayorvachAMsi vaikuNThaguNAnuvarNane
karau harermandiramArjanAdiShu shrutiM chakArAchyutasatkathodaye

mukundali~NgAlayadarshane dR^ishau tadbhR^ityagAtrasparshe.a~Ngasa~Ngamam
ghrANaM cha tatpAdasarojasaurabhe shrImattulasyA rasanAM tadarpite

pAdau hareH kShetrapadAnusarpaNe shiro hR^iShIkeshapadAbhivandane
kAmaM cha dAsye na tu kAmakAmyayA yathottamashlokajanAshrayA ratiH


A translation from vedabase. Read the rest of this entry >>

Krugman wins the prize!

Paul Krugman, a brilliant columnist on NYTimes, wins "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".

PS: Thanks to Atanu, who long ago clarified that this is what the "Nobel Prize in economics" really means!




PPS: Only that his recent posts on his blog have been scary, very very scary about the financial crisi(e)s.

Also, doesn't this paragraph:

“He’s my best student,” said Jagdish Bhagwati, an economics professor at Columbia University who, despite opposition from fellow academics, helped Mr. Krugman publish one of the seminal papers for which he received his Nobel. “Lots of people are saying to me, ‘Why didn’t you get it?’ Given the fact that I didn’t get it, this is the next best thing.”[link]

make one remember one Subramanyan Chandrasekhar?



Postscript: Read Dowd's take on Krugman's prize. Read the rest of this entry >>

Happy Vijaya Dashami!

Lots of pictures are here .

May the divine mother destroy the vile forces attacking our dharma-kshetra.



Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Dayananda: Conversion is Violence

I am just reproducing what one of the greatest masters of current days, Swami Dayananda has to say about religious conversion in India:

...

Here it is one sided. I cannot change the genius of my culture because I do not believe in conversion. I allow you to be a Christian. I allow you to be a Muslim. You be a Christian, you be a Muslim. You pray; it is fine for us. I let you be a Muslim or a Christian, even though I do not say, "All religions lead to the same goal". I don't commit that ubiquitous mistake. (Cheers)

But I give you the freedom. You please follow your religion. Don't ask me to convert others to my religion like you, because I cannot convert. It is because I do not believe in it. My parents did not believe in it. My grand parents did not believe in it. My Rishis did not believe in it. And I don't believe in it. You cannot change a culture in order to be on par with the others. It is against the genius of our culture.

It is not only our culture, which is like this; there are other cultures too. The number of the Parsis is dwindling. I loathe to see the destruction of the Parsi culture. They are harmless good people. But now they are the losers.

Jewish people are also the losers; their numbers are also dwindling. They are fighting to preserve their culture and religion. They are not converting. There is no evangelism in Judaism. There is no proselytization. There were never any inquisition. They were the sufferers; they were the victims of aggression, and planned aggression for ages.

And therefore, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people, who are committed to non-violence. (Prolonged cheers)

...

If two brothers are fighting over an empty piece of land that is there next door, and a third man occupies the land saying, "Because you two are fighting, I am occupying this piece of land", what is this logic? Some people advance this logic to me and say that we are all fighting and therefore they are in. We may be fighting amongst ourselves but we have to settle that among ourselves. That does not mean YOU can be violent. (Applause)

Here is the full speech:

[The Citizen's Committee for Dharma Rakshana Sammelan, Chennai, convened a Seminar on "Violence to Hindu Heritage" on Saturday, the I7th of July, I999, at Satguru Gnanananda Hall (Narada Gana Sabha), TTK Road, Chennai. Reproduced below is an excerpt of the Key Note Address delivered by Pujya Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati.


Mahadhyo Namaha

Friends,

I have been thinking on this topic for a long time. It is very clear to me, and perhaps to many of you, that there are two distinct religious traditions in the world. Some of them have a good following. Some others may not have.

One tradition does not believe in conversion. A Jewish person is born of a Jewish mother. A Zoroastrian is born of Zoroastrian parents. A Hindu is born of Hindu parents. And so too are the followers of Shintoism, Taoism and many other tribal religious groups all over the world. They are born to be the followers of their religions. In other words, they do not want to convert anybody. In India, when the Parsis, Zoroastrians, came as refugees, being driven from Iran, they came to Bombay, they were received and allowed to settle down in India.. They were very faithful to their religion and they lived their religion. They did not cause any problem to others. Hindus accommodated them as even they accommodated the Christians, the Muslims and many other small tribal traditions. Our vision of God allows that. We generally accept various forms of worship. We accept many forms of prayers; one more really does not matter to us. In fact, some of our Hindu friends in their puja rooms have a picture of Jesus and they don't see anything wrong about it, nor do I feel anything wrong about it.

I would call the Jewish, the Zoroastrian and the Hindu traditions as non-aggressive traditions. For me, aggression is not just a physical one. It need not be the Kargil type. There are varieties of aggression. You can emotionally be aggressive. In the United States, it is a crime to be aggressive towards the children. Simple abuse is looked upon as aggression. Verbally you can be aggressive. Physically you can be aggressive. Economically you can be very aggressive. And the worst aggression, which I consider more than physical aggression, is cultural aggression or religious aggression.

Hurt is born of many sources. I am hurt if somebody encroaches upon my piece of land that is vacant, and the court supports that person and gives me the responsibility of finding a new house for him; it is an aggression. I, get hurt. That he encroached upon my property is itself a good source of hurt. It is enough to hurt. That the law protects the one who encroached makes me more hurt. That hurt cannot be easily healed, because it leaves you helpless and the helplessness is a source of great hurt. If somebody physically hurts you, of course, it is very well known that it is a hurt. It is treated as a crime and there is a penalty for it.

If I am emotionally abused, then, that also is a great hurt. For example, people in authority can abuse you. The employer can abuse you emotionally. Husband can abuse wife. Wife also can abuse the husband. In-laws can abuse. For these, I can seek some redress somewhere.

But the worst hurt, I would say, is the hurt of a religious person? whether what the person believes has a basis or not. It is not my domain of enquiry to say whether it has a basis or not. Each one is free to follow his or her religion. Everybody would, have a certain belief system. Either the person is convinced or the person needs to be convinced. On the whole, he believes in the whole theology and follows that theology. He has the freedom to follow. that theology. That is human freedom.

What is it that one is connected to as a religious person? He is connected not to any particular person here, who is the member of the contemporary society or his family. I am connected to my parents as their son. I cannot take myself as just a son; I am connected to other people too. I am son to my parents. I am also the father to my children and husband to my wife. I am uncle, cousin, neighbour, employer, employee and citizen. I have a number of hats to wear every day. As the religious T, I have different roles to play, day after day.

A son is related to a person outside. A brother is related to a person outside. A citizen is related to a country, a state. As a religious person, who am I related to?

Let us for the sake of convenience call that religious person a devotee. To whom is that devotee connected? Definitely, not to anyone here. I may be a religious son. I may be a religious father, religious brother, religious husband. In fact, if I am religious, the religious 'me' is going to pervade every role I play.

Basically, first and last, I am a religious person, if I am one. That religious person is the basic person not related to anything empirical. He is related, of course, to a force beyond ? whatever that force may be. One may say that force is God, and He is in heaven. Another one may say, He is in Kailasa. Another may say, He is in Vaikuntha.
Another may say, He is in Goloka Brindavan. And another may say, He is elsewhere, elsewhere and elsewhere. But the person related to that force is the one whom we call a devotee, and that person has an altar. That person is not an empirical person in the sense he is the father or son or daughter. He is the basic person.

The hurt of a basic person is going to be a hurt, which is deep, and true. There is no healing power which can heal that hurt. That is the reason why any religious sentiment, if it is violated, in anyway, will produce a martyr. There is a martyr ready to be born in that basic person. And thus the religious sentiment seems to be the most sensitive.

Whenever a religious sentiment is hurt, you will find that, in the Indian press, there is a complete black out, in terms of who did what. Even the names are not given. They will say one community fought with another community. I think it is correct because it prevents further escalation. We generally do guess work and say it must be this community or that community.

This is so because, that sentiment is very deep and has to be respected? whether it is a Muslim sentiment or a Christian sentiment or a Hindu sentiment or a Jewish sentiment. That sentiment has got to be respected. If that respect is not shown, then the State has to protect that sentiment. You tell me whether it is correct or not! The State has got the responsibility to protect the religious sentiment of all the people. That I consider is secularism.

In America, the religious sentiment of every individual is protected. You can go to the court and get an answer, if there is something wrong done to you as a religious person. There is justice. They respect. In fact, if you register an institution as a "religious church", they take it as a religious church. You don't require to submit even an income tax return. Until there is a public complaint, they respect it. They give you the freedom. Here, if an institution is said to be "Hindu Religious", there is no tax exemption for the donor. It is entirely a different thing altogether.

A religious sentiment has got to be respected by every one, whether he believes in my religion or not. Just because I don't believe in your ideas, you can't stand on my toes! If you don't like my nose, it is your problem. I don't have any problem. If my ideas and my belief systems are not acceptable to you, I give you the freedom not to accept them. But you don't have any business to stand on my toes to hurt me in any manner. (Long cheers)

In fact I will fight for your freedom to think differently. You must be free enough to differ from me. Bhagavan has given us the faculty of thinking, of discrimination. We are not shy of enquiries. Our whole method of enquiry is to invite poorvapaksha objections. We will create objections that cannot even be imagined by you and then answer them. We welcome them because we are not shy. We want to explore and find out what the truth is. But that is entirely a different thing. You have the freedom to differ from me; I have the freedom to differ from you. This is what I am telling you.

This is the attitude of the non-aggressive traditions. On the other hand, the second category of religions, by their theologies, is committed to conversion.

Conversion is not only sanctioned by their theologies but also is practised by their followers. And that is their theology. They have got a right to have their own belief systems. But they don't have a right to thrust them on you. They are free to believe that unless one is a Christian, one will not go to heaven. They have a system, a set of non-verifiable beliefs ? nitya?paroksa ? on which they base their theology. (Applause)

Someone says, I have been sent by God to save you". I can also say the same thing. I will have ten people with me, because I can talk. If I don't talk and be a mouni baba, still there will be ten people. It is easy to get ten people anywhere, especially in India. I can say, "God sent me down to save all of you!"

Once, I went to Kilpauk Mental Hospital. Just for a visit, of course. (Laughter) It is my own imagination. It is not true. The Kilpauk Hospital is one of the most ancient mental hospitals in this country. Next one is in Agra. We have got the number one status in many things and this is one!

Early morning, all the crows had flown away. Nobody was there. I saw a man standing under a huge tree talking in loud voice, "Listen to me. I have come here, sent down by God, to save ail of you. You please ask for forgiveness of your sins. Those who want to be saved, please raise your hands". Then he said, Thank you, thank you, thank you". He thought that from the audience many people had raised their hands. But there was no audience. I was the only one standing behind him. Not even in front of him. I was naturally amused but I was not surprised, because I knew where I was. (Laughter)

As I was enjoying this situation, well, I heard a voice from the heaven. It said, "This is God speaking. I did not send him down. (Laughter) Don't believe him". When I looked up, there was one more fellow ? sitting on the tree. (Loud laughter and applause)

This is a none verifiable belief as you can see. In addition most of these religions, when they talk of heaven, are promoters of tourism, really speaking. (Laughter) I am interested in making my life here, right now. If there is something you have got to say to make my life different, I am ready to listen to you. If there are some pairs of ears ready to listen to some other thing, let them have the freedom.

That there is a heaven is a none verifiable belief. That, following this person, I will go to heaven, is another non-verifiable belief. That I will survive death, is a non-verifiable belief. There is nothing wrong in believing. But we have to understand that it is a non-verifiable belief. And having gone to heaven I will enjoy heaven, minus cricket match, is another non-verifiable belief. The unfortunate thing is another fellow says: I am the latest and the last. Don't follow that fellow; follow me". (Laughter) That really confuses me. He ha~ really no argument to give that he is the last. That I am the latest, is another non-verifiable belief and what is promised is again not verifiable.

I say, let those non-verifiable beliefs be there. I want them to have those beliefs, even though I will not advocate them. I want them to have freedom. Let them enjoy the freedom to have their beliefs. But what is the basis for that person to come and convert me? If you are convinced of something, you can try to convince me and not convert me. Did you ever notice a physics professor knocking at your door, asking for your time, so that he can talk to you about the particles? Never! If you want to learn physics, you have to go to him.

But here, every day, I am bothered. At the airport I am bothered, in the street corners I am bothered, at home, I am bothered. They want to save my soul!

I say this is not merely an intrusion; this is an aggression. There are varieties of intrusions. If the sound is too much outside, with all the loud speakers, well, it is an intrusion into my privacy. One can complain; not in India, of course! Here also we have got laws. It is not that we do not have laws. But we have 'in-laws' at right places. You know! (Laughter)

So nobody has any business to intrude into my privacy. You come .and tell me that I have got to save my soul. But I don't look upon myself as condemned for you to come and save. We, really, don't have a word in Sanskrit, equivalent for salvation. Because, 'salvation' means you have been condemned. Unless you are condemned, you need not be saved.

But this man comes and tells me that I am damned. I have to believe that first. Then he appoints himself to save me. This is very interesting. This is how the union leaders work. You create a problem and then appoint yourself as a leader to solve it. (Laughter) You become inevitable thereafter.

Instead of the word 'salvation', we have a word 'moksha'. Here, among the dignitaries there are may gurus. All of them have a common word and that common word is moksha. Is it not true? For every one of them it is moksha.

Moksha is not a word which is equivalent to salvation. It is derived from the verbal root moksh = mokshane. It means freedom from bondage. All of them use the word moksha. Even Saankhyas use this word. Vaiseshikas, Naiyaayikas and all others use this word moksha. In fact, if moksha is not an end in view, it is not a school of thought to talk about. We all have a moksha. Even Chaarvaakas, the materialist, has his own concept of moksha. 'Body goes'; that is moksha for him. He says, bhasmeebhutasya dehasya punaraagamanam kutaha.

So the word moksha does not mean salvation. It refers to freedom from bondage. On the other hand the aggressive religions have this belief system that you are condemned and you have to be saved.

When I look into these theologies, what I see is very interesting. I need not say anything to prove that they are illogical. I have to only state what they say!

I would like to illustrate this:

You must have heard about the 'Godfather'. You know the Mafia don is called the Godfather. He makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

He comes and tells you: "I am buying your house".

You may say, "I am not selling".

He says, "You are selling".

This type of approach was existing in Madras for some time, I am told. I hope it does not come back again. (Loud laughter and applause)

The fellow comes and tells: "I am buying your house!"

And you reply, "This is my house and I am not selling".

He says, "You are selling it and you are selling it at this price".

He decides the price also and then tells you, I know exactly where your children are studying and when they are coming home also".

He threatens you and buys the house.

Thus, a Godfather is one who makes an offer that you cannot refuse.

Now, what about God, the Father? He is worse, I tell you, because he says either you follow this person or I will condemn you eternally to hell. This is worse than the offer of the Mafia don! This too is an offer, which I cannot refuse. And it is worse.

In the other case at least, I can do something. But here he is not even visible. He is sitting in a place even safer than Dubai! I cannot do anything to him. This is the non-verifiable belief on which their religion is based.

He has the right to follow that religion. Let him follow his religion. All that I say is he does not have anything much to offer to me. If he thinks he has something to offer to me, let him have the freedom to think so. But he has no freedom to intrude into my privacy.

He converts the Hindus by any means ? by marriage, by some enticement or by some preaching which creates a fear. He talks about the goodies available in heaven-if you go to heaven, you will enjoy this and that. You will have beatitude and be saved. Otherwise, you will go to hell. It will be too hot etc. So, more out of fear of hell, one may choose to go to heaven.

He says and does all this to convert others to his religion. I say, this is wrong because if one Hindu or Jew or a Parsi is converted, and the other members of the family are not converted, they are all hurt. Even the converted one must be hurt underneath. He will be debating whether he was right in getting converted, It takes sometime for him to heal that. He is also hurt. All other members are definitely hurt. The community that comes to know of this conversion is hurt.

Please tell me, what is violence? What do you call this act that hurts? I call it violence. It is not ordinary violence. It is violence to the deepest person, the core person, in the human being. The religious person is the deepest. And if that person is hurt, I say, it is violence, rank and simple.

It is pure violence. And what does it do? It wipes out cultures.

I would like to go to Greece and see the live culture of the people who lived there. Where is that culture now? I have to imagine how they might have lived. I only see the huge monuments that are left behind.

And like this, many other cultures have been totally destroyed. The native cultures of South America, North America and Australia have all been destroyed. What about the Hawaiian culture? Gone! All the tribal cultures in Africa have been destroyed. How many cultures, for the past two thousand years, are methodically destroyed? The humanity is the sufferer and is poorer for it.

We need all the cultures. And let the humanity enjoy the riches of the different cultures. It is a mosaic of cultures, Each one has got some beauty. With the destruction of religion comes the destruction of culture. When a new religion replaces the old, a culture is destroyed.

After converting, they may try to preserve the art forms like Bharatanaatyam with the themes of the new religion. But without Nataraaja where is Bharatanaatyam, without devotion, where is nrityam?

And therefore, the culture cannot be retained if the religion is destroyed. It is true with reference to all other cultures also. But definitely it is true with reference to our culture, because, you cannot separate culture from religion.

Our religion and culture are intertwined. The religion has gone into the fabric of the culture. When I say 'Namaste' to you, it is culture. It is religion. When you are throwing rangoli, it is religion; it is culture. There is a vision behind all that. Every form of culture is connected to religion and the religion itself is rooted in the spiritual wisdom. This is because we have a spiritual tradition.

And therefore there is no cultural form unconnected to religion. Destruction of culture is destruction of religion. Destruction of religion is destruction of culture. If this destruction is not violence, what is violence? I would like to know?

I say CONVERSION IS VIOLENCE. (Thunderous applause) It is rank violence. It is the deepest violence.

Not only that, in our dharma shaastra, it is said that if somebody forcefully occupies another's piece of land, he is called an aatataayi. For an aatataayi, in our shaastra, there is capital punishment.

Occupying another's land or another's house or flat, against the will of the owner is a grave paapa according to our dharma. Many times, when the owner asks, "Give me back my house", the tenant invariably replies, I am sorry. I cannot give you the house, because my children are going to the school in this area. Please find a similar house for me. Then I will move". When the owner finds such a house for him, the tenant says, It is too far away for the children to go to school. Please find something in the same neighbourhood". It means, I would like to be here". If you go to the court, twenty five years would be gone. But occupying another's land is not dharma as per our culture.

Another's kshetra is another's kshetra. It has nothing to do with me. Kshetra-apahaari is an aatataayi. The one who does arson or poisons somebody is an aatataayi, and there is capital punishment for him. One who kidnaps another's wife is an aatataayi and there is capital punishment for him. All these actions deserve capital punishment. And if, simply for occupation of a land of another, there is capital punishment, think of what would be the punishment for the destruction of a culture.

Suppose somebody is ashastrapaani, unarmed, and you kill him, it is not correct. Karna in the Mahaabhaarata uses this argument when he was completely unarmed. Talking to Arjuna, he said, I am an ashastrapaani; you should not hit me now. Krishna had to tell him that Karna was not unarmed, but he was duly disarmed. There is a lot of difference between the two. Krishna had to convince him.

So here, a Hindu is an ashastrapaani. A Jewish person is an ashastrapaani. A Buddhist is an ashastrapaani. A Parsi is an ashastrapaani. That is, they are all non-aggressive. When you try to convert them, it is like hurting an ashastrapaani.

You cannot ask me to change the genius of my culture, the genius of my religion. It is the tradition of my culture and religion that I do not convert. It is not a situation where, you convert and I convert. And the one who has a better organisation is going to convert more number of people. It is not a percentage game of the market.

Here it is one sided. I cannot change the genius of my culture because I do not believe in conversion. I allow you to be a Christian. I allow you to be a Muslim. You be a Christian, you be a Muslim. You pray; it is fine for us. I let you be a Muslim or a Christian, even though I do not say, "All religions lead to the same goal". I don't commit that ubiquitous mistake. (Cheers)

But I give you the freedom. You please follow your religion. Don't ask me to convert others to my religion like you, because I cannot convert. It is because I do not believe in it. My parents did not believe in it. My grand parents did not believe in it. My Rishis did not believe in it. And I don't believe in it. You cannot change a culture in order to be on par with the others. It is against the genius of our culture.

It is not only our culture, which is like this; there are other cultures too. The number of the Parsis is dwindling. I loathe to see the destruction of the Parsi culture. They are harmless good people. But now they are the losers.

Jewish people are also the losers; their numbers are also dwindling. They are fighting to preserve their culture and religion. They are not converting. There is no evangelism in Judaism. There is no proselytization. There were never any inquisition. They were the sufferers; they were the victims of aggression, and planned aggression for ages.

And therefore, conversion is not merely violence against people; it is violence against people, who are committed to non-violence. (Prolonged cheers)

I don't say Hindus do not fight. They can fight very well. You don't tell me, "You put your house in order". I will put my house in order, in my own time and in my own way.

If two brothers are fighting over an empty piece of land that is there next door, and a third man occupies the land saying, "Because you two are fighting, I am occupying this piece of land", what is this logic? Some people advance this logic to me and say that we are all fighting and therefore they are in. We may be fighting amongst ourselves but we have to settle that among ourselves. That does not mean YOU can be violent. (Applause)

Somebody says we must have ecumenical dialogue. I had attended some of these dialogues. And I stopped attending them. Because I don't see any use in it. On one such occasion, I said, I can have a dialogue with a Christian, if he is ready to change, if convinced, after the dialogue". Is he, if convinced, going to change his stand? Is he going to stop conversion? Don't ask me to have a dialogue with you when you are standing on my toes. You just move away. Then we can have a dialogue.

The world religious conferences that are held are only meant to neutralise any protest against conversion. That is all. (Cheers) Because they don't want to stop conversion. So what is the use of saying, "We are all same. We are all going to the same God". It is something like saying, you know, your property is my property; my property is your property; your money is my money; my money is your money. Therefore, let my money be with me and let your money also be with me! (Laughter) So this is all wrong thinking.

All forms of prayer are valid. That I can accept. They don't accept that. I can accept because of my understanding of the shaastra. The Lord will understand, definitely, if I pray in Tamil or, Latin or Greek. There is nothing Latin and Greek to the Lord. He will understand in whichever language the prayer is made. If I pray in Samskritam, definitely, he will understand because it is His language anyway. (Laughter) I am very Catholic, understand'. I don't have this kind of silly notions that it has got to be in one language and it has got to be in one form etc.

But we have certain special forms of rituals ? Vedic rituals ? which cannot be compromised with. Because we do not know how they can be different. We have no other pramaana for it. We do not have a means of knowledge to prove that this can be different.

They do not accept any of that. And they preach. It is not that they preach their own religion. They preach against other religions. And I consider that kind of preaching is violence. It breeds violence. I have a genius which does not permit me to convert. I cannot be asked to convert.

Therefore, the violence against me is a one sided violence. It is a rank one sided violence. They have gotten away with it for two thousand years. I want them to know that this is violence. Let them prove conversion is non-violence.

I am hurt and many others like me are hurt. Millions are hurt. There are so many other issues to be discussed with reference to conversion. But I have only one to discuss here. It is the violence that is allowed to be perpetrated against humanity, against cultures, against religions. That is the only issue here; there is no other issue. (Applause)

Violence is the only issue. Humanity should not stand with hands down and allow violence to be continued against a person who is non-violent.

There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell you. I am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa, really. It is nothing but ahimsa sarva bhootebhyo abhayam. l am taking this sannyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to all the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that I will not hurt any of them kayena vacha manasaa. That is sannyasa. I am aware of this. I am a sannyasi.

Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a Padri and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are religious people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue with me about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can argue with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with people who only want to convince me.

So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and talk to them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to beat me. Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue. I implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do something". I appeal to him.

He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am secular. (Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to him. Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me positively. Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive me. Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.

And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not just a weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take care of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself. The best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband does. And therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)

But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They have to be protected and you should not fight against them". (Prolonged cheers)

"Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me. You cannot be like this".

This is the situation that prevails in India.

You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the constitution has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged cheers) My dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that dharma has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector does not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That is all. (Prolonged cheers)

Conversion is violence. And it breeds violence. Don't convert because, by this, you are converting the non-violent to be violent. (Applause) You are doing something wrong. This is drastically wrong. This error has to be realised. The sooner it is corrected, the better it is for all of us, even for Christians and even for Muslims.

I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian culture to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to be there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.

Thank you. (Prolonged cheers)

The original is here.


May bloggers have written about this. Here are some links:

1. Also read Atanu Dey's post at Deeshaa. In fact, all his posts with the tag monotheism are worth reading.
   
2. JK at Varnam also writes about this, with links to what Swami Vivekananda and Gandhi-ji said on the topic of Conversion.
   
3. Also, Gaurav's post, and the links are worth reading.
   
   

Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Tattwamayananda: The Concept of God in the Vedas

Two very well written articles by Swami Tattwamayananda, which seem to have been published in the journal Prabuddha Bharatha, in Part 1: May 2005 and Part 2: June-2005 are worth reading, and re-reading. The learned Swami has done wonderul research on the topic. Read the rest of this entry >>

On Manifest and Unmanifest in the Gita

[A version of this post appeared in advaitin yahoo group.]

This post is about the use of words avyakta (unmanifest) and its antonym vyakta (manifest), as they appear in the Gita, with my notes. Such an analysis is closely related to the questions that Arjuna asked at the beginning of chapter 12, our current Gita Satsangh topic. I also found out that just looking at the various uses of these words across Gita enhanced my understanding of Jiva, Atma, Ishvara, the world, and Brahman.



We begin with a textual listing of the different occurances of the words, [The translations of Gita verses are either Swami Gambhirananda's or Swami Chinmayananda's.]

1. 2.25 avyakyo-ayam: This self is known to be unmanifest.
   
   
2. 2.28: avyaktaadini-bhuutaani vyakta-madhyaani ... avyakta-nidhanaanyeva (avyakta twice and vyakta once): Beings are unmanifest in the beginning, manifest in the middle and unmanifest in their end.
   
   
3. 7.24 avyaktaM vyaktimaapannaM ... (each once): The unintelligent, unaware of My supreme state which is immutable and unsurpassable, think of Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest.
   
   
4. 8.18 avyaktaad.h vyaktaya ... avyakta ... (avyakta twice and vyakta once): At the coming of the (cosmic) day, the embodied beings emanate (stem forth) from the unmanifest. At the coming of the cosmic night, they dissolve truly into that alone, which is called unmanifest.
   
   
5. 8.20 parastasmaattu .. avyakto avyaktaa tsanaatanaH (avyakta twice): Higher than the unmanifest, there lies another unmanifest which is Everlasting (Eternal) which is not destroyed when all beings are destroyed. The another unmanifest would be called as "Higher unmanifest".
   
   
6. 8.21 avyakto-akshara (avyakta once): O Arjuna, these same multiple beings are born again and again. They are dissolved (into the unmanifest) helplessly at the coming of the night, and they come forth again at the coming of the day.
   
   
7. 9.4 mayaa tatamidaM sarvam jagad-avyakta-muurthinaa (avyakta once). This whole world is pervaded by me in My Unmanifest form.
   
   
8. 10.14 sarvametadR^itaM ... vyakti ... (vyakta once): Neither the Devas not the Daanavas know your manifestation.
   
   
9. 12.1 evaM satatayuktaa ... avyaktaM ... (avyakta once): Those devotees who worship you and the devotees who worship the changeless unmanifest, which of them are better versed in the Yoga?
   
   
10. 12.3 ye tvaksharamanirdeshyaM avyaktaM ... (avyakta once): Those who worship the Changeless, Indefinable, the Unmanifest, .... they also come to Me.
    
    
11. 12.5 klesho.adhikatarasteshhaa.n avyaktaa ... avyaktaahi gatirduHkha.n (avyakta twice): Greater is their trouble whose minds are set on the Unmanifest; for the goal, the Unmanifest is very hard for the embodied to reach.
    
    
12. 13.6 mahaabhuutaanyaha.nkaaro ... avyaktameva (avyakta once): The five elements, egoism, intellect and also the unmanifest (muula-prakriti) ... these are kshetra.
    

Here are my comments, reflecting my current understanding.

2.25 and 2.28: These two verses give the definitions, and set the tone for the two selves of the individual: the immutable Atman, that is unmanifest and never-decaying. and the mutable jiva. The jiva goes through the cycle of birth and death, until it stops identification with the part that takes birth and dies. This concept of two selves reaches its pinnacle in the final verses of chapter 15, where again the Lord makes a separation.

7.24 and 9.11: I think that verse 7.24 should be read along with 9.11, where the Lord again cautions against a similar misconception. In 9.11 He says, "Not knowing My supreme nature as the Lord of all beings, foolish people disregard Me who have taken a human body."

It is simple to think that either of 7.24 or 9.11 are referring to ajnaanis, the unwise, who are confused between the manifest and the unmanifest, with the verses themselves glorifying avataara-mahimaa (as in 4.6-4.9) or the vibhuutiis of the Lord (as in chapter 10) each of which are His divine glories.

The right way to understand these shlokas, as I think, is to bring in verse 13.2 (or 13.3 in some versions): kshetraj~na.n chaapi maa.n viddhi sarvakshetreshhu bhaarata where the Lord explains the difference between kshetra and kshetraj~na. The seer is the kshetraj~na and the seen object is the kshetra. The whole manifest universe, including our BMI complex, is the kshetra. The ones who know the difference between these two are the wise ones.

With the above understanding, the unwise ones of 7.24 and 9.11 could be interpreted are either of the following: (a) the ones that get confused between the manifest and the unmanifest as they think that beyond this manifest universe is the unmanifest universe, in potential form, that has to be worshipped. They do not know that the seed has the the same order of reality as the tree, as the seed itself comes from a tree! (b) the ones that do not know that the kshetra, the matter, can never be the Lord of all beings. The matter only has a material existence. Brahman, whose nature is both transcendent and immanent, can never be the matter, and has the only Lord of the universe, whatever form the universe may be.

In the former verse, Lord Krishna uses the word 'abuddhaya', while in the latter the word used is 'muuDhaa'. If there is a hierarchy between these two, I do not know. But, to the misconceptions themselves, the Lord Himself suggested a cure and the result.

The cure for the misconception of 7.24 and 9.11 has been explained in 10.10, while in verse 15.10 the result has been hinted at. In the former, the Lord uses a special term buddhiyogaM for the rescue of the sincere seekers. In the latter, while explaining the result, he clearly says: vimuuDhaa naanupashyanti pashyanti GYaanachakshushhaH: "the wise can see Me with eyes of knowledge". he interesting thing is, 15.19 mentions both the cure and the result! Instead of adding my comments, I just quote the divine wisdom:

yo maamevamasaMmuuDho jaanaatipurushhottamam.h .
sa sarvavidbhajati maaM sarvabhaavena bhaarata .. 15.19..

"O scion of the Bharata dynasty, he who, being free from delusion, knows Me the supreme Person thus, he is all-knowing and adores Me with his whole being."

8.18, 8.20, 8.21: In 8.18 and 8.21, the primary subject matter is prakriti and the jiva. The jivaas get created and destroyed. So does the world. The unmanifest-manifest-unmanifest cycle is similar to 2.28, but at a cosmological level. This world itself, could be in potential (unmanifest) form or in manifest form. Beyond even the potential form (or unmanifest form) of the world is the unmanifest consciousness, that is the witness. That witness is the kshetraj~na for the world including the BMI complex of the individual.

On manifest and unmanifest creation, we should not forget verse 2 of Shri Dakshinamurthy Stotram (biija-syaantarivaankuro jagadidam), where the creation theory is clearly explained by Adi Shankara, using the analogy of a seed. Shri Dakshinamurthy, is the unmanifest consciousness who is the Maha yogi who can conjure up this vyaavahaaric world, like a magician conjures up His magic.

On the manifest and unmanifest forms of the universe, we should also not forget names 397-399 in the Lalitha Sahasranamam, where the Divine Mother is called not only the muula-prakriti, and the avyakta, but also the nature that is manifest and unmanifest.

The tree is in the seed. Also, the seed is in the tree. But beyond the seed and the tree is the "is-ness", of either of them. That "is-ness" is common to both the tree and the seed and exists independent of either of them. That is what is to be worshipped (8.20), with worshipping being a means of identification. But if the seeker considers worshipping that to be difficult, he should do as the Lord says in the verses of chapter 12.

9.4 and 10.14: In 9.4, the Lord is affirming that He is the Lord of the Universe. In 10.14, Arjuna is echoing the Lord that he knows that the unmanifest has come teach Him, and affirming His qualification for further study. (Compare this with 7.24 and 9.11.)

12.1, 12.3, 12.5: Here Arjuna, being able to understand the crucial difference between manifest and unmanifest, is asking about the differences in the sense of upaasana (worship). The avyakta in these verses is the same unmanifest as the "higher unmanifest" of 8.20.

13.6: This is the same unmanifest as the first unmanifest of 8.18 or of 8.20, either of referring to muula prakriti.

Here is a short summary of the above notes: There is an unmanifest individual self, which is non-different from the unmanifested supreme Self. In "between" these two, come the notions of the world (in its manifested and unmanifested forms) and the Ishvara. The world in either of its forms, has does not have a higher order of reality than the individual Jiva. The Jiva concept itself, is a notion, which can be lost by losing the identification with its finiteness -- or more precisely, losing the mis-identification with its finiteness -- only by worshipping the supreme-self, with worship being a means of identification. This has been explained in the first part of chapter 12 by Lord Krishna.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Happy Krishna Ashtami

May the Lord who is beyond manifestation, who manifested as the son of Devaki-Vasudeva and Yasoda-Nanda, who later in His infinite compassion milked the ocean of wisdom in the Upanishads and taught to Arjuna, so that seekers for all future times may not miss it, manifest himself in our hearts so that we can see Him. In particular are relevant BG. 10.10, 10.11 and 18.62.


==
This is what Shri Sastri-ji says:
nishiithe tama udbhUte jAyamAne janArdane |
devakyAm devarUpiNyAm viShNuH sarvaguhAshayaH||
AvirAsiid yathA prAcyAm dishiinduriva puShkalaH ||

Then, at the hour of midnight, which ushered in the advent of the Lord janArdana, when the darkness was at its most intense, viShNu, who dwells in the cave of the hearts of all creatures, revealed Himself as He verily is, in divinely beautiful devakii, even as the full-orbed moon rises in the eastern sky.

The Lord, who is eternal, manifested Himself, just as the moon, which is ever present, becomes visible in the eastern sky when it rises. He is compared to the full moon to indicate His fullness (pUrNatvam). Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Krishnananda: Concept of God in Hinduism

A short, but a very good article by Swami Krishnananda explains the concept of God in various scriptures of Sanatana Dharma. Here is the link. Read the rest of this entry >>

vandEmAtaram

The only song of its Kind!

Happy Birthday to Shri Aurobindo too! Read the rest of this entry >>

Arjuna's Questions in the Gita

In this old post, Shri Sunder-ji lists the questions and self-descriptions of Arjuna in the GIta. They are the following:

• nimittaani cha pashyaami vipariitaani keshava .
  na cha shreyo.anupashyaami hatvaa svajanamaahave .. 1\.31..
  
  1.31 Besides, I do not see any good (to be derived) from killing my own people in battle. O Krsna, I do not hanker after victory, nor even a kingdom nor pleasures.
  
  
• nihatya dhaartaraashhTraannaH kaa priitiH syaajanaardana .
  paapamevaashrayedasmaanhatvaitaanaatataayinaH .. 1\.36..
  
  1.36 O Janardana, what happiness shall we derive by killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Sin alone will accrue to us by killing these felons.
  
  
• yadyapyete na pashyanti lobhopahatachetasaH .
  kulakshayakR^ita.n doshhaM mitradrohe cha paatakam.h .. 1.38..
  
  katha.n na GYeyamasmaabhiH paapaadasmaannivartitum.h .
  kulakshayakR^ita.n doshhaM prapashyadbhirjanaardana .. 1\.39..
  
  1.38-39 O Janardana, although these people, whose hearts have become perverted by greed, do not see the evil arising from destroying the family and sin in hostility towards, friends, yet how can we who clearly see the evil arising from destroying the family remain unaware of (the need of) abstaining from this sin?
  
  
• kaarpaNyadoshhopahatasvabhaavaH
  pR^ich{}chhaami tvaaM dharmasaMmuuDhachetaaH .
  yach{}chhreyaH syaannishchitaM bruuhi tanme
  shishhyaste.aha.n shaadhi maa.n tvaaM prapannam.h .. 2\.7..
  
  2.7 With my nature overpowered by weak commiseration, with a mind bewildered about duty, I supplicate You. Telll me for certain that which is better; I am Your disciple. Instruct me who have taken refuge in You.
  
  
• sthitapraGYasya kaa bhaashhaa samaadhisthasya keshava .
  sthitadhiiH kiM prabhaashheta kimaasiita vrajeta kim.h .. 2\.54..
  
  2.54 O kesava, what is the description of a man of steady wisdom who is Self-absorbed? How does the man of steady wisdom speak? How does he sit? How does he move about?
  
  
• jyaayasii chetkarmaNaste mataa buddhirjanaardana .
  tatki.n karmaNi ghore maa.n niyojayasi keshava .. 3\.1..
  
  3.1 O Janardana (krsna), if it be Your opinion that wisdom is superior to action, why they do you urge me to horrible aciton, O Kesava ?
  
  
• aparaM bhavato janma para.n janma vivasvataH .
  kathametadvijaaniiyaa.n tvamaadau prok{}tavaaniti .. 4\.4..
  
  4.4 Your birth was later, (whereas) the birth of Vivasvan was earlier. How am I to understand this that You instructed (him) in the beginning?
  
  
• sa.nnyaasaM karmaNaa.n kR^ishhNa punaryoga.n cha sha.nsasi .
  yach{}chhreya etayorekaM tanme bruuhi sunishchitam.h .. 5\.1..
  
  5.1. O Krsna, You praise renunciation of actions, and again, (Karma-) yoga. Tell me for certain that one which is better between these two.
  
  
• yo.ayaM yogastvayaa prok{}taH saamyena madhusuudana .
  etasyaahaM na pashyaami cha.nchalatvaatsthiti.n sthiraam.h .. 6\.33..
  
  cha.nchalaM hi manaH kR^ishhNa pramaathi balavad.h dR^iDham.h .
  tasyaahaM nigrahaM manye vaayoriva sudushhkaram.h .. 6\.34..
  
  
  6.33. O Madhusudana (Krsna), this Yoga that has been spoken of by You as sameness, I do not see its steady continuance, owing to the restlessness (of the mind).
  6.34. For, O Krsna, the mind is unsteady, turbulent, strong and obstinate. I consider its control to be as greatly difficult as of the wind.
  
  
• ayatiH shraddhayopeto yogaach{}chalitamaanasaH .
  apraapya yogasa.nsiddhi.n kaa.n gati.n kR^ishhNa gach{}chhati ..
  6\.37..
  
  kach{}chinnobhayavibhrashh{}Tashchhinnaabhramiva nashyati .
  apratishhTho mahaabaaho vimuuDho brahmaNaH pathi .. 6\.38..
  
  etanme sa.nshayaM kR^ishhNa chhettumarhasyasheshhataH .
  tvadanyaH sa.nshayasyaasya chhettaa na hyupapadyate .. 6\.39..
  
  6.37. O krsna, failing to achieve perfection in Yoga, what goal does one attain who, though possessed of faith, is not diligent and whose mind becomes deflected from Yoga?
  6.38. O Mighty-armed one, fallen from both, without support, deluded on the path to Brahman, does he not get ruined like a scattered cloud?
  6.39. O Krsna, You should totally eradicate this doubt of mine. For, none other than Yourself can be the dispeller of this doubt!
  
  
• ki.n tad.h brahma kimadhyaatma.n kiM karma purushhottama .
  adhibhuuta.n cha kiM prok{}tamadhidaivaM kimuchyate .. 8\.1..
  
  adhiyaGYaH kathaM ko.atra dehe.asminmadhusuudana .
  prayaaNakaale cha kathaM GYeyo.asi niyataatmabhiH .. 8\.2..
  
  
  8.1. O supreme person, what is that Brahman? What is that which exists in the individual plane? What is action? And what is that which is said to exist in the physical plane? What is that which is said to be existing in the divine plane?
  8.2. O Madhusudana, how, and who, is the entity existing in the sacrifice here in this body? And at the time of death, how are You to be known by people of concentrated minds?
  
  
• kathaM vidyaamahaM yogi.nstvaa.n sadaa parichintayan.h .
  keshhu keshhu cha bhaaveshhu chintyo.asi bhagavanmayaa .. 10\.17..
  
  vistareNaatmano yogaM vibhuuti.n cha janaardana .
  bhuuyaH kathaya tR^ip{}tirhi shR^iNvato naasti me.amR^itam.h ..
  10\.18..
  
  
  10.17. O Yogi, [Here yoga stands for the results of yoga, viz omniscience, omnipotence, etc.; one possessed of these is a yogi. (See Comm. on 10.7)] how shall I know You by remaining ever-engaged in meditation? And through what objects, O Lord, are You to be meditated on by me?
  10.18. O Janardana, narrate to me again [In addition to what has been said in the seventh and ninth chapters.] Your onw yoga and (divine) manifestations elaborately. For, while hearing (Your) nectar-like (words), there is no satiety in me.
  
  
• evametadyathaattha tvamaatmaanaM parameshvara .
  drashhTumich{}chhaami te ruupamaishvaraM purushhottama .. 11\.3..
  
  manyase yadi tach{}chhak{}yaM mayaa drashhTumiti prabho .
  yogeshvara tato me tva.n darshayaatmaanamavyayam.h .. 11\.4..
  
  11.3. O supreme Lord, so it is, as You speak about Yourself. O supreme Person, I wish to see the divine form of Yours.
  11.4. O Lord, if You think that it is possible to be seen by me, then, O Lord of Yoga, You show me Your eternal Self.
  
  
  
• aakhyaahi me ko bhavaanugraruupo
  namo.astu te devavara prasiida .
  viGYaatumich{}chhaami bhavantamaadya.n
  na hi prajaanaami tava pravR^ittim.h .. 11\.31..
  
  11.31. Tell me who You are, fierce in form. Salutation be to you, O supreme God; be gracious. I desire to fully know You who are the Prima One. For I do not understand Your actions!
  
  
• evaM satatayuk{}taa ye bhak{}taastvaaM paryupaasate .
  ye chaapyaksharamavyak{}taM teshhaa.n ke yogavittamaaH .. 12\.1..
  
  12.1. Those devotees who, being thus ever dedicated, meditate on You, and those again (who meditate) on the Immutable, the Unmanifested-of them, who are the best experiencers of yoga [(Here) yoga means samadhi, spiritual absorption.] ?
  
  
• kairliN^gaistriinguNaanetaanatiito bhavati prabho .
  kimaachaaraH katha.n chaitaa.nstriinguNaanativartate .. 14\.21..
  
  14.21. O Lord, by what signs is one (known) who has gone beyond these three qualities? What is his behaviour, and how does he transcend these three qualities?
  
  
• ye shaastravidhimutsR^ijya yajante shraddhayaanvitaaH .
  teshhaa.n nishhThaa tu kaa kR^ishhNa sattvamaaho rajastamaH .. 17\.1..
  
  17.1. But, ['But' is used to present a standpoint distinct from the earlier ones understand from 16.23-4.-S.] O Krsna, what is the state [i.e., where do the rites undertaken by them end?] of those who, endued with faith, adore [Adore-perform sacrifices, distribute wealth etc. in honour of gods and others.] by ignoring the injunctions of the scriptures? Is it sattva, rajas or tamas?
  
  
• sa.nnyaasasya mahaabaaho tattvamich{}chhaami veditum.h .
  tyaagasya cha hR^ishhiikesha pR^ithak{}keshinishhuudana .. 18\.1..
  
  
  
  18.1. O mighty-armed Hrsikesa, O slayer of (the demon) Kesi, I want to know separately the truth about sannyasa as also about tyaga.
  
  

Question: Is there any repetition in these questions? What is the essence behind such questions? Why this particular order? Read the rest of this entry >>

A Meta Shloka of Gita Verses

Shri R. Visvanatha Sastri (Prof. VK's father) has written a shloka, which refers to 18 verses of Gita. Read more about it here. The shloka itself is this

OmahaM prakR^itiM nainam yogabhaktyA mayA yataH /
amAnitvaM sukhaM kAryaM IshvaraH purushaH sa yat.h // * //



The following is a translation of the 18 verses (source: Swami Gambhirananda), with the five verses 13.(7-11) included.

1. omityekaaksharaM brahma vyaaharanmaamanusmaran.h .
   yaH prayaati tyajandehaM sa yaati paramaa.n gatim.h .. 8.13..
   
   He who departs by leaving the body while uttering the single syllable, viz Om, which is Brahman, and thinking of Me, he attains the supreme Goal. [Emphasis on final thoughts. The implied meaning is the emphasis on thoughts in the entire life.] [In the entire Gita, this is the only shloka that begins with Om.]
   
   
2. ahaM sarvasya prabhavo mattaH sarvaM pravartate .
   iti matvaa bhajante maaM budhaa bhaavasamanvitaaH .. 10.8..
   
   I am the origin of all; everything moves on owing to Me. Realizing thus, the wise ones, filled with fervour, adore Me. [The wise know that things happen due to Him and Prakriti and hence adore him, as they see the beauty of everything as it is.] [The verses 9.16 (and hence the series 9.(16-19)), 10.20 and 15.14 also begin with aham. The verses 9.24, 16.18 and 18.53 also begin with aham, though it is less likely that they are being referred to here.]
   
   
3. prakR^itiM purushha.n chaiva vidyanaadi ubhaavapi .
   vikaaraa.nshcha guNaa.nshchaiva viddhi prakR^itisaMbhavaan.h ..
   13.20..
   
   Know both Nature and also the individual soul to be verily without beginning; know the modifications as also the qualities as born of Nature. [Both of them are timeless without beginning.] [Though 9.8 and 13.1 both begin with the same word, it is less likely that this word refers to either of them.]
   
   
4. naina.n chhindanti shastraaNi naina.n dahati paavakaH .
   na chaina.n kledayantyaapo na shoshhayati maarutaH .. 2.23..
   
   Weapons do not cut It, fire does not burn It, water does not moisten It, and air does not dry It. [Though it is more subtle than space, Atman can be thought of as space, with space being one of the five elements. Just as the elements cannot interfere in each other, and hence the other four elements cannot interfere in the most subtle space, they cannot interfere in the Atman.]
   
   
5. yogayukto vishuddhaatmaa vijitaatmaa jitendriyaH .
   sarvabhuutaatmabhuutaatmat kurvannapi na lipyate .. 5.7..
   
   Endowed with yoga, pure in mind, controlled in body, a conqueror of the organs, the Self of the selves of all beings-he does not become tainted even while performing actions. [Even by doing, he is not contaminated.] [2.48 is a reasonable contender for this. What about 4.41?]
   
   
6. bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattvataH .
   tato maaM tattvato GYaatvaa vishate tadana.ntaram.h .. 18.55..
   
   Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge). [11.54 is a serious contender for this.]
   
   
7. mayaa tatamidaM sarva.n jagadavyaktamuurtinaa .
   matsthaani sarvabhuutaani na chaahaM teshhvavasthitaH .. 9.4..
   
   This whole world is prevaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All beings exist in Me, but I am not contained in them! [This verse, together with the next one (9.5), contains one of the three secrets of Gita. Prof. VK-ji explains it beautifully here.]
   
   
8. yataH pravR^ittirbhuutaanaa.n yena sarvamidaM tatam.h .
   svakarmaNaa tamabhyarchya siddhi.n vindati maanavaH .. 18.46..
   
   A human being achieves success by adoring through his own duties Him from whom is the origin of creatures, and by whom is all this pervaded. [The only shloka that begins with the word yataH.]
   
   
9. Ch.13-7: amAnitvaM adambhitvaM ...
   
   
   
   • amaanitvamadambhitvamahi.nsaa kshaantiraarjavam.h .
     aachaaryopaasanaM shauchaM sthairyamaatmavinigrahaH .. 13.7..
     
     (7.) Humility, unpretentiousness, non-injury, for-bearance, sincerity, service of the teacher, cleanliness, steadiness, control of body and organs;
     
     
   • indriyaartheshhu vairaagyamanaha.nkaara eva cha .
     janmamR^ityujaraavyaadhiduHkhadoshhaanudarshanam.h .. 13.8..
     
     (8.) Non-attachment with regard to objects of the senses, and also absence of egotism; seeing the evil in birth, death, old age, diseases and miseries;
     
     
   • asaktiranabhishhvaN^gaH putradaaragR^ihaadishhu .
     nitya.n cha samachittatvamishhTaanishhTopapattishhu .. 13.9..
     
     (9.) Non-attachment and absence of fondness with regard to sons, wives, homes, etc., and constant equanimity of the mind with regard to the attainment of the desirable and the undesirable;
     
     
   • mayi chaananyayogena bhaktiravyabhichaariNii .
     viviktadeshasevitvamaratirjanasa.nsadi .. 13.10..
     
     (10.) And unwavering devotion to Me with single-minded concentration; inclination to repair into a clean place; lack of delight in a crowd of people;
     
     
   • adhyaatmaGYaananityatva.n tattvaGYaanaarthadarshanam.h .
     etajGYaanamiti proktamaGYaanaM yadato.anyathaa .. 13.11..
     
     (11.) Steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self, contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality-this is spoken of as Knowledge. Ignorance is that which is other than this.
     
   
   [There is no contention for these shlokas. They are the well known GYaana shloka, with GYaana here meaning sAdhana.]
   
   
10. sukhamaatyantikaM yattad.h buddhigraahyamatiindriyam.h .
    vetti yatra na chaivaayaM sthitashchalati tattvataH .. 6.21..
    
    When one experienece that absolute Blisss which can be intuited by the intellect and which is beyond the senses, and being established (thus) this person surely does not swerve from Reality; [About bliss of the Atman and the attitude of one who has experienced it.]
    
    
11. kaaryamityeva yatkarma niyataM kriyate.arjuna .
    saN^ga.n tyaktvaa phala.n chaiva sa tyaagaH saattviko mataH ..
    18.9..
    
    Whatever obligatory duty is performed just because it is a bounden duty, O Arjuna, by giving up attachment and the result as well,-that renunciation is considered to be based on sattva.
    
    
12. iishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaa.n hR^iddeshe.arjuna tishhThati .
    bhraamayansarvabhuutaani yantraaruuDhaani maayayaa .. 18.61..
    
    O Arjuna, the Lord resides in the region of the heart of all creatures, revolving through Maya all the creatures (as though) mounted on a machine!
    
    
13. purushhaH sa paraH paartha bhaktyaa labhyastvananyayaa .
    yasyaantaHsthaani bhuutaani yena sarvamidaM tatam.h .. 8.22..
    
    O son of Prtha, that supreme Person-in whom are included (all) the beings and by whom all this is pervaded-is, indeed, reached through one-pointed devotion.
    
    
14. yadaadityagataM tejo jagadbhaasayate.akhilam.h .
    yachchandramasi yachchaagnau tattejo viddhi maamakam.h .. 15.12..
    
    That light in the sun which illumines the whole world, that which is in the moon, and that which is in fire,-know that light to be Mine.
    
    

The shloka and the explanation of ProfVK-ji raises many questions:

1. Why these verses? Why this order? Is there any implied meaning in this verse? What does Prof VK-ji mean when he says "which makes sense if you look at the content of these slokas.".
   
2. Why does Prof Vk-ji say that this shloka is the capsule of whole Gita teaching?
   
3. Are 7.16, 7.17, 11.38, 11.18, 9.27, 9.22, 13.2, 18.55, 18.66 hiding somewhere?
   
4. Does the second word 'aham' refer to 9.16 and hence to 9.(16-19), rather than just to 10.8? If so, does the number of shlokas then becomes 18+3 = 21?
   
5. Why is this shloka written on a page of the 14th chapter?
   
6. Is the 9.4 really standing for 9.5 and 9.5 and thus adding one more to the number?
   
7. Can we add the 9.(16-19) shlokas, as well as 9.(4-5)? This makes the total number of shlokas as 22. Where are the rest 2 shlokas making up to the (next) magic number 24 (Gayathri)?
   

This post is one of many with the tag Collections of Gita Verses.



Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi again on Youtube

The fourth video has very poor synchronization between audio and video. I however recommend for watching it. Read the rest of this entry >>

Bhishmastuti from Srimad Bhagavatham

In this post in the advaitin list, Prof VK-ji asks a question about the following shloka from Srimad Bhagavatham that Bhishma recites in his final moments:

tam-imam-aham-ajaM sharIra-bhAjAM
hRRidi hRRidi dhiShTitaM Atma-kalpitAnAM /
pratidRRishamiva naikadhArkam-ekaM
samadhigato’smi vidhUta-bheda-mohaH //


It is verse 1.9.42 from Srimad Bhagavatham. An explanation of this stotra by Prof VK-ji is here.

Shri Sunder-ji responds and so does Subbu-ji in this post.

You can listen to an audio rendition of the entire Bhishma Stuti by Pt. Sunder Kidambi here. Read the rest of this entry >>

Samadhi and Advaita: Michael Comans

Read the following paper: The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta. It is very well researched and goes with many of the arguments that happen in advaitin and Advaita-L, about samadhi, yoga and meditation. Read the rest of this entry >>

Swami Dayananda Saraswathi on Bhagavad Gita Chapter 13

Read the rest of this entry >>

Shri Gurubhyo Namah

Today Guru Poornima.

I quote from the following page of Prof VK., in which he lists the achievements of Vyasa, whose Birthday is celebrated as Guru Purnima.

If any single person in the entire long history of the Hindu religion has to be credited (or blamed!) for its multifarious facets that extend over a wide spectrum from extreme superstition on the one side to a ruthless intellectual dialectics on the other, it is the

‘faultless sage Vyasa, son of Sage Parasara,
grandson of Sage Shakti,
great grandson of Sage Vasishta
and father of the boy-sage Shuka’.

Vyasa has six achievements to his credit, each one of which alone could have conferred on him the stature of a Vyasa to such an extent that on one day in the year, called Vyasa Purnima day (this year 2005, on July 21), all religious and vedantic organisations and individuals in India, irrespective of the school of thought to which they belong, pay reverential tribute to him in all possible ways. The six achievements of Vyasa are:

· At the beginning of the Kali-yuga Vyasa codified the Vedas and Upanishads into 1180 branches (shAkhas) and thus preserved for the weak and satanic Kali age the age-old tradition.
· He codified the philosophical excursions of the Upanishads into a single treatise called Brahma-sutra of 555 terse statements or aphorisms – for the comprehension of which several high-level commentaries have been written till today.
· He produced the greatest book on Earth, the Mahabharata, an epic one hundred thousand verses long, the dimensions of which for the cultural panorama of the country are still being explored.
· He wrote the seventeen purANas (together equivalent to more than a Mahabharata) which constitute an encyclopaedia of all the mythological stories, legends and history of Hinduism.
· The eighteenth purANa, the Shrimad Bhagavatam, is his fifth achievement – because it is the monumental work of Bhakti without which, inspite of the other Puranas, it is doubtful, whether the Bhakti tradition would have attained to such a supreme status in Hinduism.
· Last but not least, he must be given special credit for the 700-verse-long discourse of Bhagavadgita, – even assuming he just heard it straight from the Lord’s mouth -- a single compendium covering the entire spectrum of Hindu religion and philosophy, almost replacing the Vedas; even though it is a part of the Mahabharata, it has a separate status for itself and Vyasa has to be given extra credit for recognising its strategical place and context in the great epic; the two fit each other so perfectly that it is not clear whether the Mahabharata was made for the Bhagavad-Gita or the Bhagavad-Gita for the Mahabharata.

From this site.

Of course, the eternal Guru is Shri Dakshinamurthy, who enlightens the first lamp of awakening in any person.

May the ever eternal Guru save us from the darkening world of ignorance. May He who has saved countless people, beginning with the Sanaka etc. including warriors like Arjuna make us see the Light behind the clouds.

May we always feel that Light, that is ever effulgent, the invocation of which spreads fear in the heart of fear.

It is the Narayana, in his form of Lord Krishna that removed the ignorance of Arjuna.
and it is the same Shankara who incarnated as Shri Adi Shankara to drive away the ignorance of everyone.

We Bow to all the above, as well as all our Gurus.

Here are some links:
Dakshinamurthy Stotram.
Totaka Ashtakam
Guru Paduka Stotram Read the rest of this entry >>

What is Knowledge?

The question "What is knowledge?", seems like one that a philosopher (or even one with an idle mind) would be asking, with no practical applications to "daily life". This is not so, certainly not for seekers of the underlying phenomenon beyond all subject object duality. The famous Advaitic verse from Vivekachudamani says "Brahma Satyam, Jagan Mithya, Jeevo Brahmaiva Naa Parah" (Brahman is the only Truth, the world has only a fleeting level of reality and the Jeeva is not different from the Brahman). Such a statement brings us to the following questions: How do we not perceive a unified reality all around, when it is so? How is it that we do not see the fleetingness of the reality of the world, when it is so? How is it that we fail to recognize the equality of the supreme spirit with the internal spirit?

Motive behind the questions: Shri Adi Shankara, asks the same question in many places in his commentary on Prasthana Traya. For example, in his introduction to Brahma Sutras, also called as Adhyasa Bhashya, He rhetorically wonders "How can anyone confuse the unreal with the real?". This is because the BMI is inherently jada (insentient), while Atman, the seer behind the BMI is inherently chetana (sentient). How can anyone confuse the unreal with the real? If one confuses different levels of reality, then they may be excused. What is the excuse for this confusion? Where did such a kind of confusion originate from? Shri Shankara blames this confusion to adhyasa (superimposition), which is our ignorance, and proceeds to dispel it as non-existent in many ways. (Shri Shankara uses similar concepts in many places on his Gita commentary: for example on his commentary for BG 2.16 or BG 13.2).

Knowledge and its means: The above concept of superimposition is close to Knowledge and the means of knowledge. Since it is due to our ignorance that we are confusing unreal from real, the latter which is ever existent and the former never ever(!), one of the first steps should be to define what Knowledge is, what are its valid means, and what are is the answer to the *meta*-questions like: "How do we know what we can know?", "How do we know that we know?". If such a definition is made precise, then we can separate knowledge from ignorance. Also close to the concept of knowledge is the means of acquiring it. It is like constructing a precise sieve, which will separate the knowledge rice from the ignorance husk. Then, using the sieve, one can separate the superimposition from the real stuff, continually asking the question "Is it this? Is it this?" and continuing uttering to oneself "Not this, Not this". These definitions and other concepts have been done in the classic book "Vedanta Paribhasha" (VP) by Dharamaraja Adhvarindra (DA), a 17th century Advaitic philosopher from India.

Is the systematic study of pramANa required? Yes and No.

State 2: Yes because, given the all pervasive nature of the (non-existent) avidya, we need a systematic study of the tools needed to understand its nature. In the end, we will realize that none of the tools have the power to know the nature of the Self, which is beyond the reach of any of these.

State 1: No because brahman is defined to be one that is unattainable by any of these. So, how will such a systematic study help us? For people who are at such an advanced stage that they see the true nature of the fleeting universe, it is not needed.

So, it is clear that one needs to get from state 2 (of yes: they are needed) to state 1 (of no: pramanas are not needed). (Is the movement from State 2 to State 1 a application of Vedantic method of adhyaropa-apavada? I do not know.)

In short, the study of pramANas is needed to know that the study of pramANas is not needed! (Thanks to Sada-ji who used this another context.)

==
Here are some references:

Respected Shri Sastriji (the chief moderator of advaitin yahoo group) has written explanatory notes, which is very useful for understanding the basic concepts.

1. In introduction, he explains the valid means of knowledge, according to the six major philosophical systems of India. It should be noted that the means of knowledge defined by Advaita are the same as that for Bhatta Mimamsa (a major branch of Mimamsa: after Kumarila Bhatta, whom Adi Shankara met).
   
   
2. Here he explains inference (anumana), one of the six means of knowledge.
   
3. In this link on Shabda Pramana, he explains the concept of Verbal Testimony as a valid means of knowledge.
   

Respected Shri Sadaji has been writing up his notes on VP and posting it in the advaitin yahoo list. Here is their link. (This is is an ongoing series of posts, with the current number being 13.) Each of them are worth reading multiple times, as his posts are of explanatory nature.

Swami Satprakashananda, a monk of Ramakrishna Order (and a contemporary of Swami Prabhavananda: Swami Satprakashananda was sent to St. Louis, while Swami Prabhavananda was in LA), has written a book "Methods of Knowledge according to Advaita Vedanta". It has a very lucid exposition of the terms at hand. (I plan to have a later post on this book.) Here are a couple of links on the book:

1. From RK Math, St. Louis,
   
2. From Shri Dennis-ji's page
   
3. The amazon page
   
4. a picture of Swami Satprakashananda
   
   

Happy search for Knowledge!
May the Goddess of Knowledge shower Her divine grace upon us. Read the rest of this entry >>

Origin of the word Devanagari in Rig Veda?

The usual script for Sanskrit (and hence, a couple of Indic languages) is called Devanagari (देवनागरी), which literally means "City of Gods". Isn't it interesting that it has close connection with Mantra 1.164.39 of Rig Veda?

Here is the wiki page. Read the rest of this entry >>

annapUrNA Stotram by Adi Shankara

Om!
Here are a couple of links on annapUrNA stotram by Shri Adi Shankara.
from ambaa-l and from Sanskrit Docs.


अन्नपूर्णे सदापूर्णे शङ्करप्राणवल्लभे . ज्ञानवैराग्यसिद्ध्यर्थं भिक्षां देहि च पार्वति .. ११..

May the Goddess, who is eternally full/complete and bestower of anna, the nourishment to our life,
who is the beloved of ever auspicious Lord Shankara, as if she were his life herSelf/himSelf,
May bestow on the devotees with the eternal knowledge,
and the necessary detachment from the snares of the lower worlds.

May the daughter of the mountains lead us from unreal to real, from darkness to light and from death to immortality.

Hari Om Read the rest of this entry >>