Many religions posit that God created the universe and then claim to have exclusive revelations as to what He expects of us. However, it seems to me that the creator-created dichotomy is artificial and even if we posit that God created it all, it is obvious that the one thing He could not have created would be life, for the simple reason that God is always alive - a dead God is no God. "Creation" could have started only with life. If there was no life, there would have been no creation. If life ends, then it ought to have had a beginning. So if there was a time when there was no life, life would never have come about. Thus, we can safely say that life is eternal, without beginning and end. And since we have life in us, we can logically say that we have the eternal within us. Hence, when we die, life within us does not die. It will be interesting to note that there are religions which posit that we are not the body that dies, but we are the very life that does not die. As there cannot be two eternals, eternal life is eternal God. Therefore, at least according to certain religions, we are God.
Madhavan PK said...
11:58 AM 25/Mar/08
Sure, we are God. We create and destroy the God in us.
Your comment, "Sure, we are God. We create and destroy the God in us." is great. A new take on who we really are. No trifling with man!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Are we God?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Are we God?
Many religions posit that God created the universe and then claim to have exclusive revelations as to what He expects of us. However, it seems to me that the creator-created dichotomy is artificial and even if we posit that God created it all, it is obvious that the one thing He could not have created would be life, for the simple reason that God is always alive - a dead God is no God. "Creation" could have started only with life. If there was no life, there would have been no creation. If life ends, then it ought to have had a beginning. So if there was a time when there was no life, life would never have come about. Thus, we can safely say that life is eternal, without beginning and end. And since we have life in us, we can logically say that we have the eternal within us. Hence, when we die, life within us does not die. It will be interesting to note that there are religions which posit that we are not the body that dies, but we are the very life that does not die. As there cannot be two eternals, eternal life is eternal God. Therefore, at least according to certain religions, we are God.
Creation stands for ''''re-filling'''' values and virtues in us. We do lose our inner powers by passing through the cycle of birth and re-births. It is the divine Act of God to again purify us. Creation perhaps does not stand for creating our physical forms. It points to charging our ''self'' with inner powers. The world in an inter-play of three powers -- Souls , nature and the Supreme Soul.
Dear Ranjitji,
Thank you for your comments. It now appears to me that the creator-creation tale is the biggest myth of all. I would like to think there is only existence and we posit a God to explain existence without realising that we exist and therefore the most fruitful venture would be to turn within and experience existence within ourselves to obtain all answers. What do you think?
Thank you for your comments. It now appears to me that the creator-creation tale is the biggest myth of all. I would like to think there is only existence and we posit a God to explain existence without realising that we exist and therefore the most fruitful venture would be to turn within and experience existence within ourselves to obtain all answers. What do you think?
Monday, November 5, 2007
Trial by Fire
Trial by Fire
By Vikas Vij
When Sita chose Ram in the Swayamvar, she had no idea where her fate was headed.She insisted on accompanying Ram to the forest in exile so that she could be with her husband at all times. A girl who was born and brought up in immense luxuries, agreed to share her husband's misfortunes boldly in the jungles.Sita's miseries of life did not end with her difficult years as a nomad in the wilderness. Infact, they had only begun.While in the forest, Sita's erratic and arrogant brother-in-law slashed the ears and nose of a woman who wished to marry him. It was a barbaric act that only a man of Laxman's calibre could inflict upon a woman. And Laxman's brother, Maryada Purushottam Ram, kept silent at this criminal act and neither apologized to the victim or her family, nor did anything to redress the wrong or protect the victim.As a consequence of this savage act, Ravan kidnapped Sita and kept her in confinement, even though her only fault was that she was Ram's wife. An innocent and trusting woman kidnapped treacherously from her humble dwellings. Is there anything worse that can happen to a woman's self-esteem?Yes sir, there is. As later events would reveal, being kidnapped and imprisoned by Ravan was the least of Sita's humiliations. Ram waged a war against Lanka to avenge his own princely honor. While Sita imagined all this while that Ram was fighting for her sake. Upon her rescue by Ram, Sita wept, having been away from her beloved for so long and now excited at the prospect of a reunion.Ram, however, remained cold, aloof and distant from her. And then he went on to speak his mind: "Today I have avenged the insult to my honor. While you, Sita, stand without shame before me, even though suspicions have arisen with regard to your character. Today you appear as unacceptable to me as light to the one who is suffering from eyesores. Therefore, go wherever you wish, O Janak's daughter, all ten directions are open to you today. "What man born of nobility would accept a woman who has lived with another man, simply because she has been favorable to him in the past? How can I accept you, who was enveloped in the arms of Ravan while being taken away by him, and who was lusting for you? I do not have any interest in you anymore. Therefore, you may go wherever you want."In a complete state of shock, and with tears filled in her eyes, Sita addressed her obedient brother-in-law Laxman: "Raise for me a funeral pyre, O Laxman. I no longer wish to live as I'm accused falsely of crimes that I did not commit."Laxman looked at this brother, half-expecting him to put an end to this shameful public drama. But to his horror, Ram did not bat an eyelid, and did not stop this barbaric tragedy from going any further.The usually short-tempered Laxman, who was intolerant to injustice, and who had advised his brother Ram to launch an armed rebellion against their father's decision to send him to exile, surprisingly acted like a meek slave in the face of this criminal outrage against Sita.Not one of the assembled warriors, who had displayed exceptional valour on the battlefield just now, had the courage to open their mouth against this autocratic behavior of Ram, and to oppose the historic injustice against a woman that was about to be perpetrated.Laxman proceeded to prepare the fire.As a mark of respect, Sita walked in a circle around Ram, who, as the ancient texts describe it -- "stood with his head hung down."The entire cosmos came to a halt in horror as Sita approached the fire. Sita entered the raging flames. But lo and behold! Sita's blazing faithfulness singed the fire itself, and Agnidev cried out in pain. Sita had proved too pure for the fire to burn her out.Ram was suddenly beside himself with joy at this public display of his wife's purity of character. "The world would have whispered against me, and accused me of being a lustful man who accepted Sita without testing her chastity." Sita let Ram have his way, and followed him to Ayodhya without any protest.But Sita's cup of tragedy was not yet full. It still had room for more. Rumors started floating in Ayodhya about the wisdom of having a queen who had spent a long time in a kidnapper's captivity. Ram, surprisingly for a king, did not display any strength of conviction or a backbone of his own. A king must follow what is just and logical (nyaya-poorna and tark-sangat), and not what the mass opinion says. If ten thousand people say a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing, and if only one person says the right thing, it is still the right thing.Even though Sita was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, Ram did not think twice and immediately decided to abandon Sita to the forests. Just like when your pet dog becomes a nuisance, you would abandon it in such a distant place from where it cannot return.The very next morning, Laxman took Sita to the forest in his chariot, lying to her that they were visiting a sage. On reaching the forest, Laxman said: "The king has abandoned you because he is afraid of the muffled protests taking place in his kingdom against him. I'm going to leave you near this hermitage now, and you will have to walk further on your own.Sita gave birth to twin sons in the forest, and brought them up as a single mother. When the sons reached their teens, the tales of their valour spread far and wide. When the glory of his sons came to Ram's notice, he wanted them back in his kingdom. He recalled Sita alongwith her sons from the jungle, and without even a hint of any regret or hesitation, quickly asked Sita to "perform" her Agni-Pareeksha once again, and enthrall the audiences of his kingdom with the same spectacle that she had earlier performed for him in Lanka.But this time round Sita reacted differently. She did not feel shocked or surprised at Ram's request. She did not have tears in her eyes. She did not ask Laxman to prepare a pyre for her. She did not walk around her husband in a circle of deference. She simply folded her hands, closed her eyes, and requested Mother Earth to take her in her bosom.Guru Vashishtha mili lagan sudhai, ek surya-mantra deenhaJo Sita Raghunath bihai, ik pal chein nahin keenha[A wisest sage like Vashishitha chose the most auspicious time for the marriage of Ram and Sita, and gave them the coveted Surya-mantra for the protection of their marriage. But defying all astrological predictions, "Jo Sita Raghunath bihai, ik pal chein nahin keenha..."]
When Sita chose Ram in the Swayamvar, she had no idea where her fate was headed.She insisted on accompanying Ram to the forest in exile so that she could be with her husband at all times. A girl who was born and brought up in immense luxuries, agreed to share her husband's misfortunes boldly in the jungles.Sita's miseries of life did not end with her difficult years as a nomad in the wilderness. Infact, they had only begun.While in the forest, Sita's erratic and arrogant brother-in-law slashed the ears and nose of a woman who wished to marry him. It was a barbaric act that only a man of Laxman's calibre could inflict upon a woman. And Laxman's brother, Maryada Purushottam Ram, kept silent at this criminal act and neither apologized to the victim or her family, nor did anything to redress the wrong or protect the victim.As a consequence of this savage act, Ravan kidnapped Sita and kept her in confinement, even though her only fault was that she was Ram's wife. An innocent and trusting woman kidnapped treacherously from her humble dwellings. Is there anything worse that can happen to a woman's self-esteem?Yes sir, there is. As later events would reveal, being kidnapped and imprisoned by Ravan was the least of Sita's humiliations. Ram waged a war against Lanka to avenge his own princely honor. While Sita imagined all this while that Ram was fighting for her sake. Upon her rescue by Ram, Sita wept, having been away from her beloved for so long and now excited at the prospect of a reunion.Ram, however, remained cold, aloof and distant from her. And then he went on to speak his mind: "Today I have avenged the insult to my honor. While you, Sita, stand without shame before me, even though suspicions have arisen with regard to your character. Today you appear as unacceptable to me as light to the one who is suffering from eyesores. Therefore, go wherever you wish, O Janak's daughter, all ten directions are open to you today. "What man born of nobility would accept a woman who has lived with another man, simply because she has been favorable to him in the past? How can I accept you, who was enveloped in the arms of Ravan while being taken away by him, and who was lusting for you? I do not have any interest in you anymore. Therefore, you may go wherever you want."In a complete state of shock, and with tears filled in her eyes, Sita addressed her obedient brother-in-law Laxman: "Raise for me a funeral pyre, O Laxman. I no longer wish to live as I'm accused falsely of crimes that I did not commit."Laxman looked at this brother, half-expecting him to put an end to this shameful public drama. But to his horror, Ram did not bat an eyelid, and did not stop this barbaric tragedy from going any further.The usually short-tempered Laxman, who was intolerant to injustice, and who had advised his brother Ram to launch an armed rebellion against their father's decision to send him to exile, surprisingly acted like a meek slave in the face of this criminal outrage against Sita.Not one of the assembled warriors, who had displayed exceptional valour on the battlefield just now, had the courage to open their mouth against this autocratic behavior of Ram, and to oppose the historic injustice against a woman that was about to be perpetrated.Laxman proceeded to prepare the fire.As a mark of respect, Sita walked in a circle around Ram, who, as the ancient texts describe it -- "stood with his head hung down."The entire cosmos came to a halt in horror as Sita approached the fire. Sita entered the raging flames. But lo and behold! Sita's blazing faithfulness singed the fire itself, and Agnidev cried out in pain. Sita had proved too pure for the fire to burn her out.Ram was suddenly beside himself with joy at this public display of his wife's purity of character. "The world would have whispered against me, and accused me of being a lustful man who accepted Sita without testing her chastity." Sita let Ram have his way, and followed him to Ayodhya without any protest.But Sita's cup of tragedy was not yet full. It still had room for more. Rumors started floating in Ayodhya about the wisdom of having a queen who had spent a long time in a kidnapper's captivity. Ram, surprisingly for a king, did not display any strength of conviction or a backbone of his own. A king must follow what is just and logical (nyaya-poorna and tark-sangat), and not what the mass opinion says. If ten thousand people say a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing, and if only one person says the right thing, it is still the right thing.Even though Sita was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, Ram did not think twice and immediately decided to abandon Sita to the forests. Just like when your pet dog becomes a nuisance, you would abandon it in such a distant place from where it cannot return.The very next morning, Laxman took Sita to the forest in his chariot, lying to her that they were visiting a sage. On reaching the forest, Laxman said: "The king has abandoned you because he is afraid of the muffled protests taking place in his kingdom against him. I'm going to leave you near this hermitage now, and you will have to walk further on your own.Sita gave birth to twin sons in the forest, and brought them up as a single mother. When the sons reached their teens, the tales of their valour spread far and wide. When the glory of his sons came to Ram's notice, he wanted them back in his kingdom. He recalled Sita alongwith her sons from the jungle, and without even a hint of any regret or hesitation, quickly asked Sita to "perform" her Agni-Pareeksha once again, and enthrall the audiences of his kingdom with the same spectacle that she had earlier performed for him in Lanka.But this time round Sita reacted differently. She did not feel shocked or surprised at Ram's request. She did not have tears in her eyes. She did not ask Laxman to prepare a pyre for her. She did not walk around her husband in a circle of deference. She simply folded her hands, closed her eyes, and requested Mother Earth to take her in her bosom.Guru Vashishtha mili lagan sudhai, ek surya-mantra deenhaJo Sita Raghunath bihai, ik pal chein nahin keenha[A wisest sage like Vashishitha chose the most auspicious time for the marriage of Ram and Sita, and gave them the coveted Surya-mantra for the protection of their marriage. But defying all astrological predictions, "Jo Sita Raghunath bihai, ik pal chein nahin keenha..."]
Venu Gopal said...
10:23 PM 5/Nov/07
When Rama was about to be anointed as the successor to the King, his father was forced to have a change of heart. But such was the integrity of Rama that even the one chosen to the throne in his place refused to sit on it but placed there Rama’s shoes as a token of Rama''s sovereignty. When asked to go to the forest in exile, he did not forcefully take his wife along but his wife dutifully volunteered to go along, again proving Rama''s integrity.
Surpanekha might have fallen in love with Rama but for Rama the question of marrying her did not arise. He, amused by her approach and prescient about the events about to unfold, asked her to seek Lakshmana's hand. But when Lakshmana refused her she became violent, transformed herself into the witch she actually was before she had changed her form into a beautiful woman to entice Rama, and started attacking Sita. It was only at this point and circumstance that Lakshmana too turned violent. We must remember Lakshmana was absolutely devoted to Sita and his respect for her was such that he did not ever cast a look at her face but always looked at her feet while addressing her. He was therefore naturally outraged to see Sita being attacked thus and lost his sense of proportion. This episode indicates not Lakshmana’s lack of chivalry in attacking a woman, but his overwhelming determination to ensure that not the slightest hurt happens to Sita.
If Rama was the type to doubt Sita’s chastity, he would have given up on her after she was kidnapped, married another woman and settled down. But he undertook a long and eventful rescue mission. Then again, as Agnipariksha would have revealed whether Sita was chaste, Rama would not have asked her to go through the rite if he is was not certain of her chastity, as otherwise she would have been burnt to ashes and Rama’s image, which his modern day critiques say he wanted so much to protect, would have taken a beating.
When Rama and Sita went back to Ayodhya, a washerwoman’s comment about the upright King Rama reflected his subjects’ unspoken doubt about Sita’s chastity. If through many thousands of years after the characters of the epics Ramayana and Mahabharatha lived, the names of Sita, Sati, Savtri and many others continue to present to humanity everything that is most noble in the character of womanhood, it is, in Sita’s story, because Rama, being an Avataar who had descended from Godhood and come to reinstate Dharma on earth, exhibited to the world at large the absolute divine qualities of his consort for all times. The medium he chose to do so was the concept of chastity and the ritual of agnipareeksha.
Rama had not ‘abandoned’ her for the wild animals in the jungle, as some modern day writers seem to make out, but sent to live for a period in the Ashram of none other than Valkmiki, who was later on to write the Ramayana. If Sita had not understood who Rama was and the implications of his actions and if she had thought ill of Rama, Valkimi would have been the first to know and he would have hardly endeavoured to create the Ramayana in glory of Rama. This itself is proof that all actions of Rama was a premeditated trajectory to fulfil the goals of his avataarhood.
The events of Ramayana are certainly larger than life and timeless demonstrations of love, fidelity, honour and righteousness to stand the test of time. It has stood the test of time - for even today Rama is Purushottam (the perfect gentleman) and Sita is the perfect womanhood of devoted wife and dedicated motherhood for millions of Hindus. It was a fitting finale to the story that Sita returns to the bosom of earth, from where she had come as the child of mother earth. And Rama gave up his life in the Sarayu, on the banks of which he was born.
10:23 PM 5/Nov/07
When Rama was about to be anointed as the successor to the King, his father was forced to have a change of heart. But such was the integrity of Rama that even the one chosen to the throne in his place refused to sit on it but placed there Rama’s shoes as a token of Rama''s sovereignty. When asked to go to the forest in exile, he did not forcefully take his wife along but his wife dutifully volunteered to go along, again proving Rama''s integrity.
Surpanekha might have fallen in love with Rama but for Rama the question of marrying her did not arise. He, amused by her approach and prescient about the events about to unfold, asked her to seek Lakshmana's hand. But when Lakshmana refused her she became violent, transformed herself into the witch she actually was before she had changed her form into a beautiful woman to entice Rama, and started attacking Sita. It was only at this point and circumstance that Lakshmana too turned violent. We must remember Lakshmana was absolutely devoted to Sita and his respect for her was such that he did not ever cast a look at her face but always looked at her feet while addressing her. He was therefore naturally outraged to see Sita being attacked thus and lost his sense of proportion. This episode indicates not Lakshmana’s lack of chivalry in attacking a woman, but his overwhelming determination to ensure that not the slightest hurt happens to Sita.
If Rama was the type to doubt Sita’s chastity, he would have given up on her after she was kidnapped, married another woman and settled down. But he undertook a long and eventful rescue mission. Then again, as Agnipariksha would have revealed whether Sita was chaste, Rama would not have asked her to go through the rite if he is was not certain of her chastity, as otherwise she would have been burnt to ashes and Rama’s image, which his modern day critiques say he wanted so much to protect, would have taken a beating.
When Rama and Sita went back to Ayodhya, a washerwoman’s comment about the upright King Rama reflected his subjects’ unspoken doubt about Sita’s chastity. If through many thousands of years after the characters of the epics Ramayana and Mahabharatha lived, the names of Sita, Sati, Savtri and many others continue to present to humanity everything that is most noble in the character of womanhood, it is, in Sita’s story, because Rama, being an Avataar who had descended from Godhood and come to reinstate Dharma on earth, exhibited to the world at large the absolute divine qualities of his consort for all times. The medium he chose to do so was the concept of chastity and the ritual of agnipareeksha.
Rama had not ‘abandoned’ her for the wild animals in the jungle, as some modern day writers seem to make out, but sent to live for a period in the Ashram of none other than Valkmiki, who was later on to write the Ramayana. If Sita had not understood who Rama was and the implications of his actions and if she had thought ill of Rama, Valkimi would have been the first to know and he would have hardly endeavoured to create the Ramayana in glory of Rama. This itself is proof that all actions of Rama was a premeditated trajectory to fulfil the goals of his avataarhood.
The events of Ramayana are certainly larger than life and timeless demonstrations of love, fidelity, honour and righteousness to stand the test of time. It has stood the test of time - for even today Rama is Purushottam (the perfect gentleman) and Sita is the perfect womanhood of devoted wife and dedicated motherhood for millions of Hindus. It was a fitting finale to the story that Sita returns to the bosom of earth, from where she had come as the child of mother earth. And Rama gave up his life in the Sarayu, on the banks of which he was born.
Psychology of a Slave
originalthinkers.rediffiland.com/
Monday 5 November, 2007
By Vikas Vij 10:18 5/Nov/2007 7 Comment(s)
Add Vikas Vij as Friend Write to Vikas Vij Forward this link
Pain, physical or mental, can have such a damaging and permanent influence that it can paralyse the mind forever. In a jail, if you torture an innocent victim too hard, he will almost start believing that he is the murderer, even if he had actually nothing to do with the crime altogether.Fear of pain and fear of being killed are the chief weapons of a dictator which he uses effectively. You can single-handedly force an entire nation to crawl on all fours before you, if you can terrify them enough.Fear blurs logic completely. You can start fearing your own shadow if you are walking alone in the dark in an abandoned alley in the middle of the night. Even if the shadow can do no harm, and it is powerless like a paper tiger, yet you cannot get rid of the fear as you imagine it to be someone much more powerful than it actually is. The fear of being attacked or killed by something or someone is so overwhelming in such a situation that it paralyses logic.Gandhi was one man who dared to face fear logically, and realised the hollowness of its claims. The moment he decided that death or a jail term was "okay" for him, he had no fear of these any longer. Once you have accepted the worst, you are not afraid anymore.Gandhi destroyed the colonialists' only weapon -- fear. There was a powerful scene in Richard Attenborough's well-researched film "Gandhi", where Gandhi tells his followers that each one of them will keep breaking the police cordon, and keep getting hit by their wooden batons on the head -- without any retaliation in return. At each hit, the man would fall down, and the next man would come forward to face the next hit. One after another after another. That one single piece of cinema must be one of the clearest and most visual demonstrations ever of how to finish the game of fear.The job of the police baton is not to hit you, but to scare you. If you refuse to get scared, you have punctured the dictator's plan. Why? Because the numbers are already hugely against him. He is one. You are innumberable. He cannot win this unequal battle by force. He can only win it by paralysing you psychologically. There is an old Chinese saying that a panther would attack you much more ferociously than it does, if it knew that you are afraid of it. In 1989, the Chinese students took to the streets in a massive uprising against communism, and took seize of the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The government quickly understood that it was a battle of fear versus fearlessness, and that the hollowness of fear would be soon exposed, unless fearlessness was nipped in the bud. The government swiftly ordered its military to open fire on unarmed students, and as per the New York Times count, about 800 civilians were killed, while the Red Cross estimated the number of dead to be around 3000. (3 times the Jallianwala Bagh massacre).Like China, even Pakistan is a slave nation till today. The great Punjabi poet of Lahore, Ustaad Daaman, had summed up the fate of Pakistan quite succintly in two short lines as follows: Pakistan de dou KhudaLa ila, tey Marshal Law But now Pakistan, after nearly sixty years of perfect slavery (with a few brief interruptions), is finally waking up from its paralysis of fear, and raising its voice against the shame of dictatorship. Men like Justice Choudhary, Imran Khan, Benazir Bhutto or the fearless owners of Geo TV etc. are finally getting to a point where fear is no longer an option. They must maintain their courage in their trial by fire. They are not alone, because the Pakistani masses are with them. Though the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has merely "regretted" the emergency in Pakistan, but our message to our Pakistani friends should be slightly more straightforward: If you can have the courage to expose fear, you will see that the emperor has actually no clothes. Dictatorship is a guaranteed hoax. It is a toy bomb hijacking an entire airplane. Have guts to call their bluff and you will see limitless cowardice beneath their upper false layer of cruelty. If you decide to stand up to their terrorism, the cowards will run for their life, and seek amnesty for their crimes from you only.But of course, it is easier said than done. To overcome fear, sometimes even centuries are not enough. Fearless men are not born everyday.
Monday 5 November, 2007
By Vikas Vij 10:18 5/Nov/2007 7 Comment(s)
Add Vikas Vij as Friend Write to Vikas Vij Forward this link
Pain, physical or mental, can have such a damaging and permanent influence that it can paralyse the mind forever. In a jail, if you torture an innocent victim too hard, he will almost start believing that he is the murderer, even if he had actually nothing to do with the crime altogether.Fear of pain and fear of being killed are the chief weapons of a dictator which he uses effectively. You can single-handedly force an entire nation to crawl on all fours before you, if you can terrify them enough.Fear blurs logic completely. You can start fearing your own shadow if you are walking alone in the dark in an abandoned alley in the middle of the night. Even if the shadow can do no harm, and it is powerless like a paper tiger, yet you cannot get rid of the fear as you imagine it to be someone much more powerful than it actually is. The fear of being attacked or killed by something or someone is so overwhelming in such a situation that it paralyses logic.Gandhi was one man who dared to face fear logically, and realised the hollowness of its claims. The moment he decided that death or a jail term was "okay" for him, he had no fear of these any longer. Once you have accepted the worst, you are not afraid anymore.Gandhi destroyed the colonialists' only weapon -- fear. There was a powerful scene in Richard Attenborough's well-researched film "Gandhi", where Gandhi tells his followers that each one of them will keep breaking the police cordon, and keep getting hit by their wooden batons on the head -- without any retaliation in return. At each hit, the man would fall down, and the next man would come forward to face the next hit. One after another after another. That one single piece of cinema must be one of the clearest and most visual demonstrations ever of how to finish the game of fear.The job of the police baton is not to hit you, but to scare you. If you refuse to get scared, you have punctured the dictator's plan. Why? Because the numbers are already hugely against him. He is one. You are innumberable. He cannot win this unequal battle by force. He can only win it by paralysing you psychologically. There is an old Chinese saying that a panther would attack you much more ferociously than it does, if it knew that you are afraid of it. In 1989, the Chinese students took to the streets in a massive uprising against communism, and took seize of the Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The government quickly understood that it was a battle of fear versus fearlessness, and that the hollowness of fear would be soon exposed, unless fearlessness was nipped in the bud. The government swiftly ordered its military to open fire on unarmed students, and as per the New York Times count, about 800 civilians were killed, while the Red Cross estimated the number of dead to be around 3000. (3 times the Jallianwala Bagh massacre).Like China, even Pakistan is a slave nation till today. The great Punjabi poet of Lahore, Ustaad Daaman, had summed up the fate of Pakistan quite succintly in two short lines as follows: Pakistan de dou KhudaLa ila, tey Marshal Law But now Pakistan, after nearly sixty years of perfect slavery (with a few brief interruptions), is finally waking up from its paralysis of fear, and raising its voice against the shame of dictatorship. Men like Justice Choudhary, Imran Khan, Benazir Bhutto or the fearless owners of Geo TV etc. are finally getting to a point where fear is no longer an option. They must maintain their courage in their trial by fire. They are not alone, because the Pakistani masses are with them. Though the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has merely "regretted" the emergency in Pakistan, but our message to our Pakistani friends should be slightly more straightforward: If you can have the courage to expose fear, you will see that the emperor has actually no clothes. Dictatorship is a guaranteed hoax. It is a toy bomb hijacking an entire airplane. Have guts to call their bluff and you will see limitless cowardice beneath their upper false layer of cruelty. If you decide to stand up to their terrorism, the cowards will run for their life, and seek amnesty for their crimes from you only.But of course, it is easier said than done. To overcome fear, sometimes even centuries are not enough. Fearless men are not born everyday.
The national poet of Pakistan, Iqbal knew what he was talking when he spoke these lofty words in praise of Gandhi:
Hazaaro'n saal nargis apni bey'noori pey roti hai
Badi mushqil sey hota hai, chaman mein deedaawar paida
nargis = earth
bey'noori = absence of charm
deedaawar = the one who is worth watching
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Bobby Jindal
By Vikas Vij 07:33 28/Oct/2007 2 Comment(s)
Add Vikas Vij as Friend Write to Vikas Vij Forward this link
Bobby Jindal continued...
When Arnold Schwartznegger won his elections in California, the Austrians celebrated back home.
Similarly, Sonia Gandhi's victory caused jubilation in Italy, and became a hot topic of discussion in Italy's political circles, and the leading Italian newspapers frontpaged the news in headlines. And perhaps the most generous compliment of all, came from a magazine owned by the then Prime Minister of Italy (media magnate Bertolusconi) that said: "Now we are going to have two Italian Prime Ministers, but theirs is better than ours." It is the destiny of the narrow-minded to view everything through the colored glasses of race, religion and nationality. Whereas, if you view it through the prism of humanity, the victories of Arnold Schwartznegger, Bobby Jindal and Sonia Gandhi are the victories of humanity over parochialism and narrow-mindedness. These victories are the little joys of life that are shared and celebrated by those who understand their meaning. As humble immigrants, Arnie and Bobby came to America with hope and with stars in their eyes. They rose to the very top amid stiff hurdles and extreme competition. But the most delicious victory of all, perhaps, was the victory of Sonia Gandhi in India when she demolished the highly seasoned "ghaags" (I don't have an English equivalent for this term) of Indian politics -- in one swift stroke with her humility and straightforwardness. They heaped personal insults on her, such as repeatedly referring to her by her maiden name "Sonia Maino", and making fun of her Catholic religion, and even mocking her culture, accent, food habits and so on. It was the most vicious personal campaign ever orchestrated that single-mindedly attacked an individual's personal life. And yet that simple woman of Italian origin won against all odds and all opinion polls, and provided a fresh lease of life to the dead and buried Congress party of India. Let us understand a fundamental truth about humanity: Left to themselves, human beings do not discriminate. It is not in their nature. Hindus and Muslims lived like brothers before the partition riots -- their diverse cultures and diverse religious beliefs notwithstanding. Hindus and Sikhs lived the same way in Punjab before terrorism of the 80's. Politics, i.e., divide and rule, is man's second nature. Therefore, discrimination among humans becomes a critical divisive tool of politics. For the politician, it is easy to fool the emotional masses by using this tool effectively. But in an increasingly globalised world, this tool of race, nationality and religion is beginning to lose its discriminatory value. The dividing lines are blurring, even though very slowly. Jindal's or Sonia's victories are only a reaffirmation of this fact. Merit comes before anything else in today's competitive times. The choice of the candidate must be professional, and not emotional.
Let us not forget that the Indian ancient thought was based on the principle of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (the whole world is one family.)
Ayam nijah parovetthi gananam laghu-chetasaamUdaar charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam"
[Maha Upanishad, Verse 71]
This is mine, that is yours, is man's petty way of seeing the reality; For those with noble consciousness, the whole world is a family.
Warning: But don't tell all this to emotional fools who are experts in fake patriotism. Even when the times are changing, you will never be able to change their thinking. An old Mewari saying: Akal deveyo'n naahi aaveyEey tou heeyo'n hi upajeySensibility cannot be givenIt sprouts from within
Venu Gopal said...
10:41 AM 28/Oct/07
Add Vikas Vij as Friend Write to Vikas Vij Forward this link
Bobby Jindal continued...
When Arnold Schwartznegger won his elections in California, the Austrians celebrated back home.
Similarly, Sonia Gandhi's victory caused jubilation in Italy, and became a hot topic of discussion in Italy's political circles, and the leading Italian newspapers frontpaged the news in headlines. And perhaps the most generous compliment of all, came from a magazine owned by the then Prime Minister of Italy (media magnate Bertolusconi) that said: "Now we are going to have two Italian Prime Ministers, but theirs is better than ours." It is the destiny of the narrow-minded to view everything through the colored glasses of race, religion and nationality. Whereas, if you view it through the prism of humanity, the victories of Arnold Schwartznegger, Bobby Jindal and Sonia Gandhi are the victories of humanity over parochialism and narrow-mindedness. These victories are the little joys of life that are shared and celebrated by those who understand their meaning. As humble immigrants, Arnie and Bobby came to America with hope and with stars in their eyes. They rose to the very top amid stiff hurdles and extreme competition. But the most delicious victory of all, perhaps, was the victory of Sonia Gandhi in India when she demolished the highly seasoned "ghaags" (I don't have an English equivalent for this term) of Indian politics -- in one swift stroke with her humility and straightforwardness. They heaped personal insults on her, such as repeatedly referring to her by her maiden name "Sonia Maino", and making fun of her Catholic religion, and even mocking her culture, accent, food habits and so on. It was the most vicious personal campaign ever orchestrated that single-mindedly attacked an individual's personal life. And yet that simple woman of Italian origin won against all odds and all opinion polls, and provided a fresh lease of life to the dead and buried Congress party of India. Let us understand a fundamental truth about humanity: Left to themselves, human beings do not discriminate. It is not in their nature. Hindus and Muslims lived like brothers before the partition riots -- their diverse cultures and diverse religious beliefs notwithstanding. Hindus and Sikhs lived the same way in Punjab before terrorism of the 80's. Politics, i.e., divide and rule, is man's second nature. Therefore, discrimination among humans becomes a critical divisive tool of politics. For the politician, it is easy to fool the emotional masses by using this tool effectively. But in an increasingly globalised world, this tool of race, nationality and religion is beginning to lose its discriminatory value. The dividing lines are blurring, even though very slowly. Jindal's or Sonia's victories are only a reaffirmation of this fact. Merit comes before anything else in today's competitive times. The choice of the candidate must be professional, and not emotional.
Let us not forget that the Indian ancient thought was based on the principle of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" (the whole world is one family.)
Ayam nijah parovetthi gananam laghu-chetasaamUdaar charitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam"
[Maha Upanishad, Verse 71]
This is mine, that is yours, is man's petty way of seeing the reality; For those with noble consciousness, the whole world is a family.
Warning: But don't tell all this to emotional fools who are experts in fake patriotism. Even when the times are changing, you will never be able to change their thinking. An old Mewari saying: Akal deveyo'n naahi aaveyEey tou heeyo'n hi upajeySensibility cannot be givenIt sprouts from within
Venu Gopal said...
10:41 AM 28/Oct/07
Dear Vij, When you say, “But don't tell all this to emotional fools who are experts in fake patriotism. Even when the times are changing, you will never be able to change their thinking”, there seems to be a glossing over (explaining away) of others’ points of view. Are those who are emotional, fools? Fake patriotism? Who do you have in mind? I would say that those who sided China in the 1962 war and today oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal and those who consider Mecca as holy land but are unable to sing Vande Mataram but are willing to lap up all benefits they get as minorities are fake patriots. You say that changing times require change in thinking and yet you quote from the Upanishads, thereby asserting that some thoughts don’t dim with time.
Sonia Gandhi’s main agenda is strengthening Christianity in India. However when Jindal went to America he renounced Hinduism and converted to Christianity. One could say that in both instances each have only exercised their right to live and believe as they prefer. However, Vaasudeva Kutumbakam would work only if we accept that others’ way of living are also legitimate. An educated person like Jindal who abandoned Hinduism and accepted Christianity would only be working for Christ’s Kingdom (meaning the Church) and not for Vasudeva Kudumbakam. About Arnie, he has fans across the world including me but as of today he would not be able to become President of America. The Americans are only now talking of changing their constitution to allow a foreign-born to become President but till they actually do so (when they think it is priority) let us not be unfair on Indians who state the fact that Sonia is an Italian and we do not want an Italian Prime Minister of India.
Sonia Gandhi’s main agenda is strengthening Christianity in India. However when Jindal went to America he renounced Hinduism and converted to Christianity. One could say that in both instances each have only exercised their right to live and believe as they prefer. However, Vaasudeva Kutumbakam would work only if we accept that others’ way of living are also legitimate. An educated person like Jindal who abandoned Hinduism and accepted Christianity would only be working for Christ’s Kingdom (meaning the Church) and not for Vasudeva Kudumbakam. About Arnie, he has fans across the world including me but as of today he would not be able to become President of America. The Americans are only now talking of changing their constitution to allow a foreign-born to become President but till they actually do so (when they think it is priority) let us not be unfair on Indians who state the fact that Sonia is an Italian and we do not want an Italian Prime Minister of India.
INDER VIG said...
4:11 PM 29/Oct/07
This is mine, that is yours, is man''s petty way of seeing the reality; For those with noble consciousness, the whole world is a family.AND THATS THE ONLY TRUTH,,,,,,,WHAT A MEANING FULL POST IS YOURS,,,WISH ALL TO UNDERSTAND THE SPIRITS
What Inder Vig says is absolutely true - mine-yours divide is a petty way of seeing reality. But the state of non-duality is achieved by man only after intense spiritual practices - till then our understanding would not be translated to reality. That we should be exited about an Indian becoming Governor of a state in America proves that the mine-yours divide is alive in us. Criticizing him for having converted also proves the existence of the same divide in us - our sense of righteousness and falsity. Whose sense of righteousness is true? Then again, the greatest of Advaita masters do come down to the level of ordinary people to raise them to a higher level. So even such Advaita masters need necessarily take a "my-way-right, your-way-wrong" stand point.
Therefore in the ultimate analysis, duality is inevitable. When we achieve non-duality, we achieve moksha - no more return to the pettiness of the world. Advaita is the absolute truth, the glory of Hinduism, the teaching that disproves the claim of the Semitic religions to be the ultimate messengers of truth. However, Advaita is for the individual. So long as we need to have a society, the mine-yours dichotomy would remain.
I further wish to add to what I''ve said above.
The teaching of Advaita has had pervasive effect on Hindu culture, the most obvious being the inclusive nature of Hinduism - crystallized in the mantra "Vasudeva Kutumbakam". Today, when the world is slowly and surely moving towards a clash of civilizations - between the Christian and Islamic worlds, Advaita can bring in the cooling effect - would even expose the limited dogmas of both these Semitic religions. Therefore if we are to contribute to universal well being both as individuals and as a society, the yogic vision of Advaita is inevitable, which alone would lead to a harmonious or Dharmic society.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Three Tough Questions?
funnybirdy.rediffiland.com/
Saturday 6 October, 2007
Category : Religion
11:54 27/Sep/2007 1 Comment(s)
Assalam o alaikum
Three Tough Questions?
Saturday 6 October, 2007
Category : Religion
11:54 27/Sep/2007 1 Comment(s)
Assalam o alaikum
Three Tough Questions?
There was a young man who went overseas to study for quite a long time. When he returned, he asked his parents to find him a religious scholaror any expert who could answer his 3 Questions. Finally, his parents were able to find a Muslim scholar.Young man: Who are you? Can you answer my questions? Scholar: I am one of Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala )'s slaves and Insha-Allah(God willing), I will be able to answer your questions. Young man: Are you sure? A lot of Professors and experts were not able toanswer my questions.Scholar: I will try my best, with the help of Allah(SubHana Wa Ta`ala).Young Man: I have 3 questions: 1. Does God exist? If so, show me His shape.2. What is thaqdir (fate)? 3. If shaitan (Devil) was created from the fire, why at the end he willbe thrown to hell that is also created from fire. It certainly will not hurt him at all, since Shaitan (Devil) and the hell were created from fire. Did God not think of it this far?Suddenly, the Scholar slapped the young man's face very hard.Young Man (feeling pain): Why do you get angry at me? Scholar: I am not angry. The slap is my answer to your three questions. Young Man: I really don't understand.Scholar: How do you feel after I slapped you?Young Man: Of course, I felt the pain. Scholar: So do you believe that pain exists?Young Man: Yes. Scholar: Show me the shape of the pain!Young Man: I cannot.Scholar: That is my first answer. All of us feel God's existence without being able to see His shape... Last night, did you dream that you will be slapped by me?Young Man: No.Scholar: Did you ever think that you will get a slap from me,today?Young Man: No. Scholar: That is takdir (fate) my second answer........ My handthat I used to slap you, what is it created from? Young Man: It is created from flesh. Scholar: How about your face, what is it created from? Young Man: Flesh. Scholar: How do you feel after I slapped you? Young Man: In pain. Scholar: Thats it. this is my third answer, Even though Shaitan Devil) and also the hell were created from the fire, if Allah wants, insha-Allah (God willing), the hell will become a very painful place for Allah said: If you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you." If you are not ashamed, pass this message on...only if you believe. Yes, I love Allah. Allah is my fountain of Life and My Savior. Allah keeps me going day & night. Without Allah, I am no one. But with Allah, I can do everything. Allah is my strength." May Allah help u to succeed... Ameen. Take Care, Allah Hafiz.
What the scholar ostensibly tries to say is that there are answers to all questions. However, this would be true only if we draw correct inferences from direct knowledge/experience. For the inference to be correct, our direct knowledge/experience of a thing must be interchangeable with the as yet unknown thing. If we discover water, air etc. in a planet, we can infer that there are living beings in that planet because such conditions on earth have given rise to living beings. This inference could be correct if the water and air in that planet is interchangeable with earth's water and air. The scholar says just as pain has no shape, God too could be without shape. However, the inference may be misplaced because God and pain are not interchangeable. Therefore it might be a case of the scholar trying to bamboozle an impressionable young man.
Source of our problems
funnybirdy.rediffiland.com/
Saturday 6 October, 2007
18:08 20/Sep/2007 0 Comment(s)
Add ok as Friend Write to ok Forward this link
A group of working adults got together to visit their University lecturer. The lecturer was happy to see them. Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
The Lecturer just smiled and went to the kitchen to get an assortment of cups - some porcelain, some in plastic, some in glass, some plain looking and some looked rather expensive and exquisite.
The Lecturer offered his former students the cups to get drinks for themselves.
When all the students had a cup in hand with water, the Lecturer spoke: "If you noticed, all the nice looking, expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal that you only want the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. What all you wanted was water, not the cup, but we unconsciously went for the better cups."
"Just like in life, if Life is Water, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold/maintain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change."
"If we only concentrate on the cup, we won't have time to enjoy, taste and appreciate the water in it."
Permalink
Saturday 6 October, 2007
18:08 20/Sep/2007 0 Comment(s)
Add ok as Friend Write to ok Forward this link
A group of working adults got together to visit their University lecturer. The lecturer was happy to see them. Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.
The Lecturer just smiled and went to the kitchen to get an assortment of cups - some porcelain, some in plastic, some in glass, some plain looking and some looked rather expensive and exquisite.
The Lecturer offered his former students the cups to get drinks for themselves.
When all the students had a cup in hand with water, the Lecturer spoke: "If you noticed, all the nice looking, expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal that you only want the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. What all you wanted was water, not the cup, but we unconsciously went for the better cups."
"Just like in life, if Life is Water, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold/maintain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change."
"If we only concentrate on the cup, we won't have time to enjoy, taste and appreciate the water in it."
Permalink
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
