Saturday, March 24, 2007


'Meditation is meaningless if it does not bring about a complete
transformation, if it does not purify your thought or alter for the better
your whole approach.' Because, 'True meditation helps you go beyond like and
dislike, craving and aversion, to awaken in you a state of dispassion.
Meditation which fails to develop equanimity is no meditation'. And those
who merely seek such meditation from some meditation center but return the
same as before, it is 'no more than sleep or unconsciousness'. It is like an
evildoer while harbouring evil inside, 'but outwardly at least he does no
harm while asleep'.

After giving these valuable (and many more) tips, Acharya Mahaprajna, in his
article 'Meaningful Meditation, Greater Understanding' (The Speaking Tree,
The Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 20, 2007, p. 16) concludes by saying,
'The approach is all important. And inculcating the right approach, you must
go into what thought is and what transcends thought'.

The way he criticizes seeking meditation from some meditation centers,
without aiming for 'complete transformation,' is noteworthy. These
meditation centers are 'limited by time and space;' beware, those who seek
readymade and instant solutions through meditation, yoga etc. in some
commercial centers. Meditation is meaningless unless it is implemented in
practical life. Because 'equanimity' (stitap prajnata) comes from a stable
mind. When you are in a meditation center, as you are focused without much
outward disturbance, you may feel that finally you have attained it. But the
real testing ground is what you are when you began to rub shoulders with
people again.

But what exactly to meditate on comes to my mind when I read any article on
meditation. Considering the fickleness of our minds, giving some formulas in
the form of mantra, slogans, chants, etc., may discipline our brain for some
time, but the mind, as the center of our personality, needs to be trained by
reflection and analysis of our thoughts and works as often as possible to
asses our progress towards that transformation.* Because transformation is a
continuous process which involves many factors. Without considering these
important factors, mere meditation even with 'right approach' and going
'into what thought is and what transcends thought' won't help much. However,
as Acharya Mahaprajna says, one must take meditation seriously rather than
merely seeking it without aiming for transformation.


*.in ordinary, normal conditions the mind is master of itself-perceives
justly, reasons soundly, acts rationally-behaves, in every respect, as a
sane mind should. The question is not, how will the mind act in the absence
or disturbance of the appropriate brain conditions? But, how does it act
when these appropriate conditions are present, and reason is securely seated
on its throne?- - James Orr, God's Image in Man, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids Michigan, 1948, p. 76.

Text and Interpretation

Bhakti, coming from the root baj denotes the relationship of a bhakta with
god. This relationship is not one sided, as bhagavan, which means one who
shares, reciprocates this relationship. Therefore, in order to save his
bhakta, god would do anything for him. In the same way, once saved by god,
the bhakta, because of his sakhya (friendship) bhakti, can demand anything
from his god.

There are some stories in our Puranas, which considering other human rights
and values, will question some of the errands which a god has done for his
bhakta in the name of (sakhya) bhakti, however the context is to glorify the
concept of bhakti.

In one regional Purana, as per the request of his bhakta, god arranges a
second marriage with another woman when his bhakta already has a wife. When
this man broke his promise to his second wife that he wouldn't leave her, he
became blind as per the condition set by that woman to god. But, still
because of his friendship, when the bhakta earnestly prays, god restores his
sight. And then when the first estranged wife refuses to take her husband
back due to his marrying another woman, the same god goes to her house, that
too at midnight, to convince her to receive her husband back. When another
bhakta came to know about all this, he become upset with the first bhakta,
who now was a friend to god. So in order to show his friend's bhakti to the
other bhakta, god gave the latter severe stomach pain, which was only cured
by the first bhakta, the friend of god.

I have not mentioned here the name of the bhakta or the Purana, as some may
have hurt feelings even from what I have already shared. My intention is not
to hurt anyone, but we do need to notice that when we use such old stories
among modern young people, they (particularly women) question such acts of
god and bhaktas, who, according to them, violate fundamental human
(particular women's) values. Of course when such stories were told or
recorded in our scriptures, their context and worldview was completely
different. Their aim was not to degrade others or to justify violations of
human rights or moral principles. Every story and illustration has one main
theme which it wants to highlight; if we begin to interpret them based on
our present worldviews and values we will miss the main teaching of the

However, we have to agree with one point; most of the mainline religious
scriptures, however they may glorify woman in theory, yet when it comes to
reality of life are male oriented and male dominated in their nature. So
perhaps present day speakers, instead of using such stories to explain a
concept (in this case sakhhya bhakti), should use some other stories, like
that of Arjuna with Krishna, to communicate their thought. But I know of an
incidence where the above story was told, both to illustrate the sakhya
bhakti and also to explain the structure, content, background etc. of that
Purana. The question raised was why god never thought about the rights and
feelings of the second wife? When the bhakta broke his promise, though he
temporarily lost his eye sight, his second wife was punished permanently, as
she had to live the rest of her life alone. (The story never makes any
mention of any children, either.)

Of course the response to this criticism is that both the bhakta and his two
wives were really celestial beings. One day the "man" fell in love with the
two girls when they came to fetch flowers, and since they fell in love with
each other, they were sent to live on earth to fulfill their desire.
Accordingly they came to earth and got married and after their time on earth
ended they went back to their celestial world. (There is no point in asking
why, if gods were allowed to marry and live happily in their celestial
abode, his assistants were denied such right and had to be sent on earth.
Such criticism is not critical, but what we call vidanta vaad-argument for
the sake of argument itself.)

Yet all questions about the stories in the Puranas and epics cannot be set
aside as mere objections from women. True, in the past most women were
voiceless; now being educated, they challenge certain traditional values
which kept them suppressed. However, for this reason alone we cannot ignore
past stories. But when we interpret a text, we should not merely impose our
own interpretation due to contemporary need. And speakers using such stories
need to honestly acknowledge problems that are present.

One time a scholar on the Ramayana, after listening to arguments from both
sides about Rama's killing of Vali, referring all the text in their proper
context clearly gave his judgment that what Rama did to Vali was wrong. I
had never before heard such a verdict, as most of the speakers keep faith
and bhakti first rather than the context of the text. This does not mean
that the scholar who accused Rama is not a bhakta of Rama. In his analysis,
he remained faith to the text rather than to the traditional view about

We need more such scholars and speakers who will do proper exegesis of texts
and stories rather than speaking with mere sentiment.


Saturday, March 10, 2007

Reality versus Idealism

Every system has its own idealism. But generally idealism is created by
later followers of a system who, in order to make sense of their views,
create an idealism by systematically arranging some of its precepts. For
example, here in India we talk about Vedic, Upanishidic, Vedantic, bhakti,
etc., idealism, as if there exists any one single idealistic trend in them.

In general, most systems start by addressing the needs and reality of life.
If one reads the Vedas, the Vedic people are down-to-earth realists in their
outlook and approach to life. In several of the Vedic hymns one reads their
poetic excitement (produced by Soma juice) about real issues which they were
facing in real life. Contemporary modern poems are the best equivalent. They
are appreciated not for their forms, but for the content as they address
real issues of life. The same is true of the Upanishads. In their
contemplative meditation, the sages thought through the real issues of their
life. It could be atman or brahman, but for them it is not some intellectual
talk or thought but rather the core of their struggle in their spiritual
life. However, later commentators and teachers created idealistic philosophy
out of it-like advaita by Sankara.

The same can be applied to non-religious systems-whether political, social,
or economic. Over the course of time, what the originators of system created
for their own understanding became, through the process of systematization,
an idealistic view of that system which the originators neither intended nor
were aware of. But now we who live in the modern era take that idealism as
the reality of those systems, and try to promote and apply that to our life,
which is completely different from the reality of those times from which
that system and idealism evolved.

Caste is one such Indian reality. Though traditionally brahmins were blamed
for 'producing, propagating, promoting and preserving' that ideal for their
selfish end, yet a sincere student of history will realize that in such
analysis 'reality bites'. My intention is neither to defend the brahmin not
to blame others. However, some people, who want to promote some kind of
'casteless' Hinduism, suddenly want to create another kind of idealism, even
confessing the sin of 'promoting and preserving' casteism all these
centuries in India, and now they want to repent and produce another
idealistic Hinduism of brotherhood and sisterhood (see the note below). But
reality in India bites again. This morning in CNN-IBN morning news (Feb.
16th, 2007) they showed several Dalit families in Haryana living in an open
field for the last few months, even braving the cold, in order to protest
the atrocity of high caste people in the Gandhian way of ahimsa.

To such people, the type of confession in the note below, particularly with
an international audience in mind, has no relevance. Even the high caste
people against whom these Dalit families were protesting will have their own
genuine issues related to some conflict or land dispute, etc. The reality
here undoubtedly is again an economic problem. All these centuries what the
so-called suppressed people faced was not some idealistic humiliation from
the upper castes, but they struggled first on an economic level and then on
the social level. Or, the economic reality of those times created that
social discrimination. Then for all these centuries they remained 'faceless,
voiceless, powerless, moneyless,' and continue to remain so even now. Mere
ideological slogans calling for a casteless utopian Hinduism by confessing
some past sins without addressing the reality of life may perhaps satisfy
some elitist Hindus, especially those sitting somewhere in their promised
land. But we Indians are going to have to struggle with our reality in
life-in which caste is a permanent issue.

Having said this, I am not against such confessions and calls for 'reform'
in Hinduism. Something is better than nothing. Whether 'idealistic' or
'reality', we have to begin from somewhere and I see this apology by Navya
Shastra as a good beginning with all sincerity and seriousness. But the
reality in life here is that even the so-called suppressed people want to
keep their caste identity, as it is now beneficial both for economic
advantage through reservation and political advantage through voting power.
Thus the call to give up that identity will be ignored by the people for
whom reality is more important than idealistic slogans or confessions.


Note: "Hindu Organization Apologizes for Untouchability." [From Hindu Press
International,, Dec. 21, 2006] TROY, MICHIGAN, December
20, 2006: (HPI note: The following appeared as a press release written by
Navya Shastra and sent out through Religion News Service.) Navya Shastra,
the international Hindu reform organization, has issued an apology to the
Dalit communities of India (see The organization issued
the apology after consulting with Hindu activists and its own Dalit members.
It reads: We, at Navya Shastra, deeply regret and apologize for the
atrocities committed on the sons and daughters of the depressed communities
of India, including the tribals, the "untouchables" and all of the castes
deemed as low.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007


"Democracy", Mr. Vajpayee emphasised, "was more a moral than just a constitutional or legal system. While constitution and law are important, the prestige of Parliament is its life-giving strength (Pranshakti) and this must be bolstered by observing morality and ethics". (G.B.Pant Award for the best Parliamentarian of the year 1994; Times of India, Aug.18, 1994, p. 1)

"Does morality hold any value in this age of corruption and competition", asked the army-retired bank manager, after his long quarrel with the TTE while I was travelling with him from Kanpur to Lucknow. Though he held a second class ticket, yet knowing that he should not travel in the second class sleeper coach, yet he boarded in my compartment at Kanpur with his family. And caught by the TTE, he first started in mere argument that everybody is travelling not minding about the rule. When the TTE, not yielding to his arguments, started to fine him, the Bank Officer began to quarrel with the TTE. Finally I had to interfere when the Bank Manager started to use unparliamentary words against TTE, even threatening to beat him with his chappel, if he (TTE) did not fine the rest of the passengers in the same compartment (I had my second class sleeper ticket).

Finally a compromise was reached, and only charging the actual rate, the TTE left the compartment. He could not collect the fine because already he had collected some fives and tens from the rest of the passengers. After a long gap of silence the Bank Officer and I entered into discussion, and in the course of our talk he asked this question.

Though I did not expect such a question from an educated man, that too a retired army officer, I said, "I know that the TTE is a corrupt fellow. We all know that we are living in a morally degraded society. But simply blaming the society for all its corruption, imagining as if we are not part of it, won't solve this problem. My immediate concern to interfere in this matter was not to protect the TTE or to help him to uphold the law. My only concern was your two sons (12 and 10 years respectively). Anything your children are going to learn in this world is first from their parents. They may be very much influenced by the world as they are growing up, and the modern world is largely depriving them of the fellowship of their parents and elders. Yet still the first impression that they will get is from their parents. Now they have seen you using unparliamentary words, that too before their mother, and the way you threatened the TTE to beat him even with chapels, etc, would definitely make its own impression on their young minds. Now tell me what kind of morality would you expect from them as they grow up?"

The Bank Manager remained silent for a few minutes. After some thought he said, "No, I will bring them up in such a way that they will face their challenges and learn how to survive, rather than to think about MORALITY." THIS INDEED SHOCKED ME; what about you?

What does MORAL actually mean?

I would like to hear practical answers rather than philosophical ideas.

Welcoming your reply,


Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The sickness of this age.

Busyness is the sickness or curse of this age. Even a lazy person has no time to be what he is. There is nothing wrong as such in being busy. However, what busy people try to accomplish is not addressing their need or solving anyone’s problems. Instead it makes even simple things complicated.

The first victim of busyness is relationships on every level. This not only affects relationships within the family, but also among friends, colleagues and it spreads to every part of society. The next victim is patience. As everyone wants instant solutions for everything in life, it deprives us to cultivate the best of virtues: PATIENCE. In addition, to cater to such needs now readymade and even artificial solutions are available. This naturally leads to the commercialization of life itself. Yes, instead of values now money alone is enough in life, as it will buy the ready-made solutions instantly.

Take for example the fine arts. In old times, what was learnt from a teacher (guru) was not merely the art, but also important values based on relationships. The guru also, instead of merely teaching the technique of the art, actually transmitted himself along with virtues and values to the shishya, based on relationship. Now what has happened to such a beautiful relationship? Neither the guru nor the shishya has time, as they are too busy with many things. So, what is known as ‘guru parampara’ (guru tradition) has not only disappeared, but even both teaching and learning have been commercialized.

Of course, certain forms need to be changed in life in order to accommodate ourselves to changes of the times. But not basic values.

The solution lies not in taking some holidays and then returning to the busy schedule, but rather in cultivating relationships, first at home and then extending to other areas of life. When RELATIONSHIPS again become center stage in life, it will serve as the best antidote the sickness of busyness. Busyness and doing things in a hurry are merely symptoms; the disease is insecurity. As relationships provide security, we will learn patience and will do things as they ought to be done - PROPERLY rather than busily.

Mathigiri, February 13, 2007.