Height of nonsense - Rama is not historical!

Centre denies existence of Rama or Ramayana-India-The Times of India

"Rama is not a historical character"

I've been doing "Whoa!" too many times since last week. But I can't check myself from doing it as each time, it comes out involuntarily. But this time, it is very serious.

The characters of rAma and sItA (and several others from the rAmayaNa) have left an indelible imprint on the Indian psyche for millenia. Temples celebrating them across the length and breadth of the country are ample proof for this. Works that are off-shoots of the vAlmIki rAmayaNa have occurred in almost all Indian languages. Why, the kannada poet kumAra vyAsa laments that "the serpent bearing the earth struggles with the weight of poets retelling the rAmayaNa"! There are several works which describe actual places associated with the rAmayaNa. For example, kAlidAsa (at least a couple of millenia old) narrates in his meghadUta that "his yakSha lived near the waters that were rendered holy by that fact that sItA, the daughter of Janaka took bath in them" (janaka-tanayA-snAnapuNyodakeShu).

While classical and folk literature is replete with the references to the characters of the rAmAyaNa, our countrymen over the years adore and respect rAma. "rAmarAjya" - they say when they want to describe an ideal kingdom.

rAmeshwaram, dhanuShkoDi and Lanka are real places and they are all steeped in legend.

Consciously or not, all Indians are affected by Rama's character. So, if somebody asks about the historicity of such a character, isn't it right to exhibit righteous indignation?

Did vAlmIki the "Adi Kavi" (first poet) compose the rAmayaNa out of thin air, so to speak? He specifically states that he based his work on a real king.

Anyway, what makes a character historical? If Rama is not a historical person of flesh and blood, he is a historical Ideal that is much stronger than anybody could have ever been with just flesh and blood. So for me and a billion Hindus across the world, Rama is more historical and real than several people who are alive.

What the government has done by its statement is dangerous and irresponsible. The Government is moving in uncharted waters. Never before has an
Indian Government, AFAIK, gone blatantly on record making such a statement.

Just consider the equivalent of this statement in other religions. It is like saying "there is no historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of several Biblical characters such as Adam, Isaac, Moses and even Jesus". What will the Christians/Jews and even Muslims feel if they are subjected to such a statement? What if the Government says that the "Genesis in the Bible is bogus as there is no "historical record" to prove that God created the world in seven days?" Will the Roman Catholic at the helm of affairs allow such statements to be made at all?

The sentiment of the Hindus in the face of such a statement is not only one of pain and anguish but one of offense. "How dare you!" will be the reaction of several people.

Why does the government repeatedly snub the majority by making such offensive statements?

The Rama setu is a symbol of what Rama stood for. It may or may not be man made - but who cares? It is the belief of a billion people that it was built by Rama. That should be sufficient. I am normally not for activism for anything but this action is taking it too far. I feel incensed enough to take part in a protest march.

Post Script: Last week, I bought a Kannada translation of the vAlmIki-rAmAyaNa. I am also reading shrI rAmayaNa darshanam by Kuvempu (A profound and beautiful poetic work, I wish to add). Several friends and relatives I know are reading various versions of the rAmAyaNa. This is not because of any rAma setu stuff but just out of interest. When Rama is thus alive in the hearts of his devotees, how can the Government say he is not historical? Anyway, do we care if he is historical or not?

Geeta as a dharmashAstra?

Govt, legal experts react against HC observation on Geeta - Newindpress.com

Yesterday, a judge of the Allahabad High Court recommended making the gItA the National DharmashAstra. Now all and sundry are reacting to this. While the Mullahs and Marxists are reacting as expected, I (and lots of people) consider the judge's observation inaccurate.

Why? Just pick up any copy of the Geeta and read to the end of each of its eighteen chapters. At the conclusion of each chapter, you have a statement that goes somewhat like this:

"Om tatsaditi mahAbhArate saMhitAyAM vaiyAsikyAm bhIShmaparvaNi shrImadbhagavadgItAsu-upaniShatsu brahmavidyAyAm yogashAstre shrI-kRiShNArjuna-samvAde arjuna-viShAda-yogo nAma prathamo.adhyAyaH"

It roughly translates to "Thus concludes the nth chapter of the Auspicious Divine gItA-upaniShat that is the Supreme Knowledge of brahman and is a treatise on yoga, that occurs in the bhIShma-parva of the mahAbhArata as a dialogue between shrI kRiShNa and arjuna"

You see the yogashAstre highlighted in the above quote. yoga comes from the root yuj that means to yoke or join. In this case, the joining refers to the jIvAtmA and paramAtmA. In other words, the geeta is a mokSha-shAstra. That is why brahmavidyAyAm is also highlighted.

dharma and mokSha are the first and last puruShArthas. While the fruition of dharma can be termed mokSha, both of them are not the same. So, how can a shAstra pertaining to one be another?

While the judge's motive might be good, he should have termed it better. His inaccurate statement might have just provided fodder to those gleeful Marx-influenced who will now show that Hindu Dharma's defenders don't know what they are defending.

Rama Setu: The curious case of a nation's government trying to destroy its own national heritage

In the last couple of months, there has been a big hue and cry about the Government of India going ahead with the construction of a canal by cutting through the middle of Rama Setu - a bridge like formation between India and Sri Lanka.

This bridge has been celebrated as the bridge constructed by Lord Rama to get his army to Sri Lanka to rescue his kidnapped wife Sita. Check the link below for a wonderful podcast by Dr. S. Kalyaranaraman on why this Sethusamudram canal project should be done differently. This podcast discusses scientific, environmental, religious and historical aspects of the Rama Setu. The thesis is that Setusamudram canal, if it cuts through Rama Setu can have disastrous results for the coasts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Please visit the podcast below and get educated on the Rama Setu issue.
http://poduniversal.blogspot.com/2007/05/adams-bridge-also-known-as-ramar-bridge.html

The funny thing is that this bridge - known as Rama Setu for a long time - was renamed as Adam's bridge by the British and our maps in school still refer to them as Adam's bridge and Adam's peak. Why?

While I can understand why the British behaved as they did, I can't understand why the DMK and its allies - who are after all our compatriots, derive perverse pleasure in maligning the Hindu religion and its monuments,beliefs and personages. In fact, DMK leaders secretly involve themselves in Hindu rituals! Why this facade of hatred?

The other interesting thing is that a study shows that the Rama Setu is apparently man-made (more information in the podcast). I use the word 'apparently' as I don't seem to fully believe that a bridge of that length and especially of that age could be man-made. But the study is beginning to appear more and more convincing to me.

A better development in this matter is that Hindu leaders across the country are rising against this onslaught against one of their symbols. The Jagadguru of the Sringeri Shankara maTha Sri Sri bhAratI tIrtha swAminaH has himself spoken in this regard. Known for his complete non-involvement in matters even remotely political, Sri swAmIji has now issued statements voicing great concern about possible damage to rAma setu.

The UPA government might continue with its project - but not without some very stiff opposition.

PS: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE watch and listen to that podcast and pass it on to your friends to educate them about this matter. Thanks to Dr. S. Kalyanaraman for such a painstaking analysis and lucid explanation of the matter for lay people such as myself.

shrI vidyAraNya - the unparalleled one - Part II

ब्रह्मक्षत्रसमिद्धबुद्धिविभवप्रॊद्भूततेजोबलात्
उद्वेलोग्रतुरुष्कसैन्यजलधिं संस्तभ्य दूराच्चिरम् ।
वेदं शास्त्रमथोद्दधार सकला यो भारतीयाः कलाः
विद्यारण्ययतीश्वरं नमत भॊस्तं नूतनं शङ्करम् ॥

brahma-kShatra-samiddha-buddhi-vibhava-prodbhUta-tejo-balAt
udvelogra-turuShka-sainya-jaladhiM saMstabhya dUrAcchiram
vedaM shAstrama-thoddadhAra sakalA yo bhAratIyAH kalAH
vidyAraNya-yatIshvaraM namata bhostaM nUtanaM shaMkaram

(Composed by mahAmahopAdhyAya Vidvan shrI Ranganatha Sharma in his book PanchadashI pravachana)

Gist: Having stopped the ocean of excessively fierce turuShka forces at a distance for a long time, solely by the radiance emanating from the combined prowess in Brahma and kShatra, he indeed resurrected vedic learning and by that, all the Indian arts. All ye! Bow down to such a personality, shrI vidyAraNya, the foremost among yatis (sages), who is indeed a new Shankara.

The early fourteenth century CE was a tumultuous period for Hindus all over India. Islam had traveled to India and had established strong roots. Several Muslim dynasties had ruled large tracts of India by then. In particular, Malik Kafur, the general of Ala-ud-din Khilji created havoc far into southern India destroying and looting several temples (notably Halebid, Madurai, Srirangam). That was the first time an Islamic ruler had gone so far. The threat of Islamic invasion had become a reality to several people in that region. The Yadavas of Devagiri, the Hoysalas of Dwarasamudra, the Kakatiyas of Warangal and the Pandyas of Madurai were roundly routed. These rulers also fought amongst themselves, just making it easy for a foreign invader to defeat them. The absence of a unified power that could stand up to this onslaught was glaring. The necessity of such a power could not be understated.

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत ।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहं ॥
“Whenever righteousness declines and unrighteousness increases, then I manifest Myself”. So guarantees Lord Krishna in the gItA. Almost as if to prove this statement was the advent of Sri vidyAraNya.

In 1296 CE (April 11th, according to a few researchers), to the blessed couple mAyaNa and shrImatI was born mAdhava. This is durmukha saMvatsara, vaishAkha shuddha saptamI, Wednesday, according to the lunar calendar. Madhava or mAdhavAchArya (not to be confused with madhvAchArya) was destined to grow to become shrI vidyAraNya. Based on existing research and information, he was born in Karnataka in the bharadvAja gotra. His school was krishNayajurveda and his sUtra was bodhAyana.

Wealth and learning, it is said, do not go together. It was the case at least with Madhava and his family. sAyaNa and bhoganAtha were his younger brothers and these brothers had Singale as their sister.

Taught initially by his father mAyaNa, mAdhava and sAyaNa, became disciples of shrI shrIkaNThanAtha, a renowned teacher around the area of Sringeri. Later they learnt under the famous pontiffs of Sringeri – shrI bhAratI tIrtha and the great shrI vidyAtIrtha. shrI shankarAnanda (author of gItAtAtparyabodhinI and other advaitic works) was another teacher.

shrI vidyAtIrtha was known to have traveled as far as the Himalayas in those days. It would not be too much to surmise that mAdhava might have accompanied him in a few of his travels. This would have given mAdhava an idea of the country’s state at that time and would have even probably sown in his mind the seeds of the Great Reconstruction that he was to undertake later.
The learning of both sAyaNa and mAdhava was encyclopedic, covering the veda, vyAkaraNa(grammar), alaMkAra (poetics), vedAnta, shilpa (architecture), kalA (art), orthodox and heterodox darshanas, Agamas, purANas, music, Ayurveda, mathematics and so many other fields. The fact that this pair of brothers has accomplished so much is ample testimony to their education. It can be vouched for by any traditional paNDit that mastery in even one of these fields is difficult. What then of this bewildering variety of subjects!

After completing brahmacharya or the Ashrama of studenthood, Madhava very likely entered gArhasthya or the life of a householder. For a person who had titles like “prativasantasomayAji” (one who performed the soma sacrifice every spring), it seems quite unlikely that he would be unmarried. (Unmarried people cannot perform such sacrifices). sAyaNa must have followed his brother into householdership as well. It is surmised that Madhava spent almost sixty years of his life (age 20 to age 80) as a householder.

It was during these momentous sixty years that mAdhava undertook several onerous tasks. He was instrumental in founding a kingdom that would become the bulwark against future Islamic invasions. He was the Prime Minister of the region he lived in. He was Royal Preceptor. He guided several efforts to codify dharma, culture and art. He was also the kulapati in his gurukula.

As was done in those days, shrI mAdhavAchArya formally renounced the world and became a sannyAsin – shrI vidyAraNya - around 1376 CE. He became the pontiff of Sringeri, that great seat of learning. Even then, shrI vidyAraNya could not spend a lot of time in Sringeri itself, but in the capital, Hampi, to guide the rulers in administration.

As shrI vidyAraNya himself says in his panchadashI
ज्ञानिना चरितुं शक्यं सम्यग्राज्यादिलौकिकम् ।
An illumined person can indeed address worldly acts such as ruling a kingdom.

Swami VidyAraNya himself was an apt example for that statement. He attained videha-mukti (bodiless salvation) in 1386 CE.

This particular post focused on the details of the life of shrI vidyAraNya. The next part will focus on the political aspect of shrI mAdhava-vidyAraNya’s contributions.

iti sham

References
1. shrI vidyAraNya vijaya - by shrI DVG (Collected works of DVG, Vol 3, Directorate of Kannada and Culture, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore - 560 001 )
2. vibhUtipuruSha vidyAraNya - by shatAvadhAni Dr. R Ganesh (Published by shrI bhagavatpAdaprakAshana, Swarnavalli, Sonda - 581 336, Karnataka)
3. panchadashI pravachana - by MM vidvAn shrI ranganAtha sharmA (Published by vedanta bharati, Krishnarajanagara, Mysore Dt - 571 602, Karnataka)

shrI VidyAraNya, the unparalleled - Introduction - Part I

India ever since her independence in 1947 has chosen to unfortunately celebrate only “politically correct” and “convenient to explain” heroes and freedom fighters. As a result, we forget, at great loss to ourselves and our progeny, such great men that had served Mother India in various roles.

Swami VidyAraNya is one such illustrious personage. Even though the state of karNATaka celebrates him in several books and even the occasional film song here and there, he is fast vanishing from the minds of the common man. Of course, he seems to have been forgotten in other parts of India. His memory is well preserved only among practising Advaitins who, to this day hold dear his great works such as the panchadashI, the vivaraNa-prameya-saMgraha and of course, the monumental veda bhAShya – done with the help of his younger brother of his pUrvAshrama – sAyaNa.

Other Indian readers need to learn more about such people who epitomize Indian values and culture. Indians were not always fatalists resorting to the inviolable law of karma. And neither were they cowards.

Remembering such personalities makes our life richer. It also makes us humble after having known that such great men walked the earth and country that we now take for granted.

With this short introduction, I will begin the series on shrI vidyAraNya from the next post.

Idol vs Icon : Some thoughts on idolatry

Today I was reading the Times of India online and I saw an item that has been a real irritant to me. The item said "Tirupati idols in city on Dec 2-3". The city in question is Mumbai. The Times of India is not my favourite and yet I read it. Rather, I scan it for advertisements to see if I can get good deals on something.

Anyway, back to the peeve in question. Let's look at what dictionary.com has to say about the word idol. It says -

i‧dol 
–noun

1.	an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.

2.	Bible. a. an image of a deity other than God. b. the deity itself.

3.	any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion: Madame Curie had been her childhood idol.

4.	a mere image or semblance of something, visible but without substance, as a phantom.

5.	a figment of the mind; fantasy.

6.	a false conception or notion; fallacy.

The first meaning is what is usually alluded to by people such as the reporter of the TOI piece. But it is a recent addition and when Westerners refer to it, it usually refers to one of the meanings 2 - 6 above. Note especially this part from the ten commandments which is very important for all the three Abrahamic religions:

You shall not make for yourself an image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

As we can see quite clearly, this can be interpreted as being against idolatry. Islam, especially prohibits such images and the destruction of innumerable Hindu temples during its invasion proves this quite well. Judaism is similar to Islam in its explicit prohibition of image or idol worship. Certain streams in Christianity interpret this commandment a bit liberally and allow for the veneration of what they call icons. Let us look now at the dictionary meaning of the word icon. The relevant meaning here is :

Eastern Church. a representation of some sacred personage, as Christ or a saint or angel, painted usually on a wood surface and venerated itself as sacred.

As a result, Christians, especially Catholics and the Orthodox church, use the word "icon" to signify any physical object they venerate. Christians have been actively proselytizing in India for at least over 200 years in India. When they did so, they usually downgraded the images of the deities that were being worshipped in India. Their standard line - your god is just a piece of stone. In other words Hindus worshipped idols, whereas the "True Way" worshipped icons. Since English was first used naturally by Western people in India, they liberally used "idol" to describe Hindu objects of worship, and obviously in a derogatory manner. But as far as images of Jesus and symbols such as the cross were concerned, they were all icons. Indians, after taking to the English language, apparently began using the word idol to refer to their own objects of worship, knowingly by a few and unknowingly by the vast majority. Since the word idol has negative connotations, I strongly prefer to not use that word. In fact, I would prefer the word "icon" or better, the samskrit word - mUrti.

I have told several people that once an object becomes worthy of veneration, it becomes at least an icon. I have asked people not to use the word idol while referring to our deities. I wonder if I am being too dogmatic about the whole matter.

Anyway, while the Abrahamic religions revile "idol" worship, what is it that they exactly do? Let's take Muslims first. For them, the most revered place of worship is the Kaaba at Mecca. In its corner is a black stone which devout Muslims are supposed to kiss. While a few Muslims consider that just a stone, other people attribute spiritual qualities to it such as the ability to absorb sin and so on. If somebody kisses an object out of reverence, is that not essentially idolatry?

For the Christians, an altar in which images of Jesus on the cross and several angels can be found in several churches. The church walls are full of images of angels and saints. If they venerate an image, are they not doing something similar to the Hindus? Therefore, when they talk in an accusing tone about Hindus "committing idolatry", they are being just hypocritical.

Even in Judaism, there is a certain location supposed to be in today's Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem considered to the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies is a place that is supposed to have the constant presence of the Divine. My question is : Is God not above such physical boundaries? By specially limiting God to a certain area or even considering *only* a specific physical area as holy is essentially the same as idolatry.

I know that God is considered omnipresent by all theistic religions. Hindu religion, though having multiple deities, has one Supreme Reality that is omnipotent and omnipresent. Even then, several temples and mUrtis are built to worship God. The images are considered holy - but people know that they are worshipping not just the image but the Divine in the image. But it is quite common for people to get attached to physical objects, be they icons or idols. It may be this attachment to just the "physical object" that might have been reviled in the ten commandments.

As far as Hindus are concerned, the essential worship that is basic for the three varNas is sandhyA. sandhyAvandanaM is performed during three parts of the day and is essentially worship of no object. Though the Sun God is offered arghya, the gAyatri mantra essentially refers to illumination and a prayer to guide us in the correct path. This worship is actually free of any physical adoration.

I do not condemn image worship or praise the other one. As everybody is different, Hindus have different paths for people of different mental makeup. That is how we can find the complete spectrum of spiritual practices starting from animal sacrifices and worship of trees all the way to dhyAna of the Supreme in one's own heart and AtmavichAra. This is the reason for the variety and colour in Hinduism and so many deities, each considered the Supreme one.

But there is scriptural sanction in the Hindus for all such practices. The following common shloka is indeed elevating:

AkAshAt patitaM toyaM yathA gacChati sAgaram |
sarvadevanamaskAraH keshavaM prati gacChati ||

It basically means that worship of all gods leads to the worship of one Supreme God. And even Lord KrishNa assures us in the gItA

"ye yathA mAM prapadyante tAnstathaiva bhajAmyaham |"

This line means : just as people approach me, so I approach or accept them. Krishna never does say - "you should worship me and only me with the shankha and the chakra and the gadA" and so on.

Such words that can be found in many places in our scriptures are the reason for not just tolerance but the acceptance of various traditions in India.

Compare that with this:

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me.

Do we now know where the intolerance springs from?

ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಪ್ರಿಯನಾದ ಗಣೇಶ

ಗಣೇಶನ ಹಬ್ಬ ಕಳೆದು ಇನ್ನೇನು ಪಕ್ಷವಾಗುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿತು. ಅವನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಈಗ ಬರೆಯಲು ಬಯಕೆ ಬಂದಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಪೂಜೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಹಬ್ಬದ ದಿನ ಮಾತ್ರ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲವಲ್ಲ? ನಾವು ನೋಡುವ ಹಾಗೆ ನಿತ್ಯವೂ ಗಣೇಶನ ದೇವಸ್ಥಾನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜನಜಂಗುಳಿ ಬೇರಾವ ದೇವಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇಷ್ಟು ಜನಪ್ರಿಯನಾಗಿರುವ ಗಣೇಶನ ನೆನೆಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲೋಸುಗ ಇದನ್ನು ಬರೆಯಲು ಮೊದಲುಗೊಂಡಿರುವುದು. ಋಷಿಮೂಲ-ನದೀಮೂಲಗಳನ್ನು ಕೇಳಬಾರದೆನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ ಹಿರಿಯರು. ಈ ಪಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ದೇವರುಗಳನ್ನೂ ಧಾರಾಳವಾಗಿ ಸೇರಿಸಬಹುದು. ಆದರೂ ನನ್ನ ಗಣೇಶಾನ್ವೇಷಣೆ ಆ ರೀತಿಯದಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರೀತಿಯಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ಮಿತ್ರನೊಬ್ಬನನ್ನು ಕುರಿತು ತಿಳಿಯುವ ಹಾಗಿರುವ ಹುಡುಕಾಟ.

ಹಿಂದಿನ ಕಾಲದಿಂದ ಗಣೇಶ ಕೃಷಿಕರ ದೇವತೆ ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಸಿದ್ಧಿ ಹೊಂದಿದವನು. ಆನೆಗಳು ಬಂದು ಬೆಳೆಯನ್ನು ಧ್ವಂಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿದ್ದ ಕಾಲವದು ಎಂದು ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶ ತಲತಲಾಂತರಗಳಿಂದ ಕೃಷಿ ಪ್ರಧಾನವಾದ ದೇಶ. ಹಾಗೆ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ವೈದಿಕ ದೇವತೆಗಳಾದ ಇಂದ್ರ, ವರುಣ, ಸೂರ್ಯ ಮೊದಲಾದ ದೇವತೆಗಳೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಕೃಷಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮಿಂದಾಗುವ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನದಿಂದಲೇ ಪೂಜನೀಯರೂ ಆದರು. ಗಣೇಶನ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೂ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಆಗಿರಬೇಕು. ತೊಂದರೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿವಾರಿಸಲು ಆನೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ವಿಘ್ನೇಶ್ವರನು ಕಂಡಿರಬೇಕು.

ತ್ರಯೀವೇದದಲ್ಲಿ (ಅಂದರೆ ಋಗ್ಯಜುಸ್ಸಾಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ) ನಾವೀಗ ಕಾಣುವ ಚತುರ್ಭುಜನಾದ ಮೋದಕಪ್ರಿಯನಾದ ಶಿವ-ಗಿರಿಜೆಯರ ಪುತ್ರನಾದ ಗಣೇಶನು ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ಭಾವನೆ (ಇದು ತಪ್ಪಾದರೆ ತಿದ್ದಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಬಯಸುತ್ತೇನೆ). ಅರ್ವಾಚೀನವಾದ ಅಥರ್ವವೇದದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಣೇಶಾಥರ್ವಶೀರ್ಷೋಪನಿಷತ್ತು ಮುಂತಾದ ಭಾಗಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾಣಬಹುದು. "ಗಣಾನಾಂತ್ವಾ" ಅಥವಾ "ನಿಷುಸೀದ" ಎಂದು ಬರುವ ತ್ರಯೀವೇದದ ಮಂತ್ರಗಳು ಬಹುಶಃ ಬೃಹಸ್ಪತಿ ಅಥವಾ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಣಸ್ಪತಿಯನ್ನುದ್ದೇಶಿಸಿದ್ದಾಗಿವೆ.

ಆದರೆ ವೇದದಲ್ಲಿರುವುದಕ್ಕೂ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧವಿಲ್ಲವಷ್ಟೆ? ಪೌರಾಣಿಕ ದೇವತೆಗಳ ಕಲ್ಪನೆಗೂ ವೈದಿಕ ದೇವತೆಗಳ ಕಲ್ಪನೆಗೂ ಅಜಗಜಾಂತರದ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ. ಈಗ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಪೂಜಿಸಲ್ಪಡುವ ದೇವತೆಗಳೆಂದರೆ ಶಿವ-ವಿಷ್ಣು-ಶಕ್ತಿ-ಗಣೇಶ-ಸುಬ್ರಹ್ಮಣ್ಯ ಮೊದಲಾದ ಪೌರಾಣಿಕ ದೇವತೆಗಳೇ! ಈಗ ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಏಳಬಹುದು. "ವೇದಗಳೇ ಪರಮಗ್ರಂಥಗಳಾದ ಹಿಂದುಗಳಿಗೆ ಪೌರಾಣಿಕದೇವತೆಗಳ ಪೂಜೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲವಲ್ಲ?" ಎಂದು. ಆದರೆ ಈ ದೇವತೆಗಳ ಸ್ವರೂಪಗಳು ದೇವರಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲವಲ್ಲ? "ಏಕಂ ಸದ್ವಿಪ್ರಾ ಬಹುಧಾ ವದಂತಿ, ಅಗ್ನಿಂ ಯಮಂ ಮಾತರಿಶ್ವಾನಮಾಹುಃ" ಎಂದು ವೇದವೇ ಹೇಳಿದೆಯಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಜನಗಳಿಂದ ಪೂಜ್ಯವಾದ ಒಂದು ರೂಪವು ದೇವರೆಂದೆನಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಕಷ್ಟವೇನಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ಶಿರಡಿಯ ಸಾಇ (ಸಾಯಿ ಬಾಬಾ ಎಂದು ಕನ್ನಡಿಗರು ಬರೆಯದಿದ್ದರೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದು) ಬಾಬಾರವರ ವೃತ್ತಾಂತವನ್ನೇ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳೋಣ. ಎಲ್ಲೆಡೆ ದೇವರೆಂದೇ ಪೂಜೆಗೊಳ್ಳುವ ಬಾಬಾರವರು ಇನ್ನೂರು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ಭೌತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಇರಲೇ ಇಲ್ಲ! ಈಗ ಅವರನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಾತ್ ದೇವರು ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವಷ್ಟು ನಮ್ಮ ಹಿಂದೂ ಧರ್ಮ ವಿಶಾಲವಾಗಿರುವಾಗ, ಪೌರಾಣಿಕದೇವತೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ತಾನೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳದೆ ಇದ್ದೀತು? ಗಣೇಶನದು ಇತ್ತೀಚಿನ ಕಥೆಯಾಗದಿದ್ದರೂ ಒಂದಾನೊಂದು ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಪೂಜೆಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಬಹುದು ಅಲ್ಲವೇ? ಗಣೇಶನು ಅನಾದಿಯಾದರೂ ಅವನ ಪೂಜೆಗೆ ಆರಂಭ ಇರಬೇಕಲ್ಲ?

ಸಾಯಣಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ವೇದಭಾಷ್ಯದ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ -
"ವಾಗೀಶಾದ್ಯಾಃ ಸುಮನಸಃ ಸರ್ವಾರ್ಥಾನಾಮುಪಕ್ರಮೇ |
ಯಂ ನತ್ವಾ ಕೃತಕೃತ್ಯಾಃ ಸ್ಯುಸ್ತಂ ನಮಾಮಿ ಗಜಾನನಮ್ ||"
ಎಂದು ಗಣೇಶನನ್ನು ಸ್ತುತಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸಾಯಣರು ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರೆಂದು ಖ್ಯಾತರಾದ ಮಾಧಾವಾಚಾರ್ಯರ ಅಣ್ಣಂದಿರು. ಇವರು ಹದಿನಾರನೆಯ ಶತಮಾನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದದ್ದು. ಅವರ ಸ್ತುತಿಯಿಂದ ತಿಳಿಯುವುದು ಗಣೇಶನ ಆಗಲೇ ಇದ್ದ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅವನೆಡೆ ಇದ್ದ ಭಕ್ತಿ.

ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಏಕೆ? ವೇದ ವ್ಯಾಸರ ಮಹಾಭಾರತಕ್ಕೆ ಲೇಖಕನಾಗಿದ್ದವನು ಗಣೇಶ. ಮಹಾಭಾರತದ ಲೇಖಕ ಗಣೇಶನೆಂಬ ಕಥೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಳೆಯದೋ ತಿಳಿಯೆ. ಅದರೆ ಜನಮನ್ನಣೆಯನ್ನೇ ಅಲ್ಲ ಗಣೇಶ ಗಳಿಸಿದ್ದು. ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರೇ ಸ್ವತಃ ತಮ್ಮ ಗೀತಾಭಾಷ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ "ಯಾಂತಿ ದೇವವ್ರತಾ ದೇವಾನ್ ಪಿತೄನ್ಯಾಂತಿ ಪಿತೃವ್ರತಾಃ" ಎಂಬ ಶ್ಲೋಕಕ್ಕೆ (೯-೨೫) ಭಾಷ್ಯ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತ "ವಿನಾಯಕಮಾತೃಗಣಚತುರ್ಭಗಿನ್ಯಾದೀನಿ" ಎಂದು ಭೂತಗಳ ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ಷುದ್ರಶಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇರುವ ಮಾತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿನಾಯಕ ಅಥವಾ ಗಣೇಶನನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ವಿನಾಯಕನೂ ಕೂಡ ಒಂದು ಕ್ಷುದ್ರಶಕ್ತಿಯೋಪಾದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪೂಜೆಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಯುತ್ತದೆ. ಇಂದು ಕೂಡ ವಾಮಾಚಾರದ ಪೂಜೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಗಣೇಶನ ಪೂಜೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾರಂತೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಏಕೆ ಹೇಳಿದೆನೆಂದರೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಈ ರೂಪವೂ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ. ಈ ಉಗ್ರರೀತಿಯಿಂದ ಪೂಜೆಗೊಳ್ಳುವ ಗಣೇಶನನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಪ್ರಿಯನಾದ ಸೌಮ್ಯರೂಪನಾದ ಗಣೇಶನೆಡೆ ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ಬರೋಣ.

ಗಣೇಶನದು ಆಗಮಪ್ರಕಾರವೇ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ರೂಪಗಳಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ಶಕ್ತಿಗಣಪತಿ (ಮುತ್ತುಸ್ವಾಮಿ ದೀಕ್ಷಿತರು ಈ ಗಣೇಶರೂಪಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಕೃತಿಗಳನ್ನು ರಚಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ), ವಲ್ಲಭಾಂಬಾ ಗಣಪತಿ, ಬಾಲಗಣಪತಿ, ಭಕ್ತಗಣಪತಿ, ನೃತ್ಯಗಣಪತಿ, ಮಹಾಗಣಪತಿ, ಉಚ್ಛಿಷ್ಟಗಣಪತಿ - ಹೀಗೆ ಬಹಳಷ್ಟು ರೂಪಗಳಿವೆ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಚಾರಿಯೆಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲ್ಪಡುವ ಗಣೇಶನಿಗೆ ಸಿದ್ಧಿಬುದ್ಧಿಯರೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ವಲ್ಲಭಾಂಬೆ, ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ (ನಾರಾಯಣಿಯಾದ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯಲ್ಲದೇ ಬೇರೆಯವಳು ಈಕೆ), ಮುಂತಾದವರು ಪತ್ನಿಯರಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಶಿವನ ಮಗನಾದರೂ ತಂದೆಯನ್ನೂ ಮೀರಿಸಿದವ ಗಣಪತಿ. ಗಾಣಪತ್ಯರಿಗಂತೂ ಗಣೇಶನೇ ಅತ್ಯುಚ್ಚ ಪರಬ್ರಹ್ಮ ಸ್ವರೂಪ. ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರದೆಂದು ಖ್ಯಾತವಾದ ಸ್ತೋತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ "ಅಜಂ ನಿರ್ವಿಕಲ್ಪಂ... ಅದ್ವೈತರೂಪಮ್" ಎಂದು ಸ್ತುತಿಸಿರುವುದು ಗಣೇಶನ ಈ ಅವಾಙ್ಮನಸಗೋಚರರೂಪವನ್ನೇ! ಅಥರ್ವಶೀರ್ಷದಲ್ಲೂ "ಪ್ರಕೃತೇಃ ಪುರುಷಾತ್ ಪರಮ್" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ - ಪ್ರಕೃತಿಪುರುಷರೆಂಬ (ಅಥವಾ ಜೀವ-ಜಗತ್ತೆಂಬ) ದ್ವೈತವನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಪರಮಸತ್ಯ ಎಂದು ಗಣೇಶನನ್ನು ಸ್ತುತಿಸಿದೆ. ಅಥರ್ವಶೀರ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ "ತ್ವಂ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾದಾತ್ಮಾಸಿ ನಿತ್ಯಮ್" ಎಂದು ಆತ್ಮಸ್ವರೂಪವೇ ಗಣೇಶನೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದೆ.

ಈ ರೂಪಗಳಿದ್ದರೂ ಈಚೆಗೆ ನಮ್ಮವರು ಗಣೇಶಹಬ್ಬ ಬಂದದ್ದೇ ತಡ - ಅವನನ್ನು ಡೈನೋಸಾರ್ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೂಡಿಸುವುದು, ಸೂಟ್ ಹಾಕಿಸುವುದು, ಕನ್ನಡಕ ಹಾಕಿಸುವುದು, ಮುಂತಾದ ಆಧುನಿಕ (ಡೈನೋಸಾರ್ ಆಧುನಿಕವಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೂ ಜ್ಯುರಾಸಿಕ್ ಪಾರ್ಕ್ ಆಧುನಿಕ ತಾನೆ!) ವೇಷಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾಪ ಗಣೇಶನಿಗೆ ಹಾಕುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇದೂ ಸಾಲದೆ ಬೃಹದಾಕಾರನಾದ ಅವನನ್ನು ಸಣ್ಣ ಇಲಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೂಡಿಸಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿಲ್ಲಿ ಬೀಳಿಸಿದ ಹಾಸ್ಯಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾಂಡವನ್ನು ಉದರದಿ ಪೊರೆಯುವ ದೇವದೇವನಿಗೆ ಅಪಚಾರವೇ? ಹಾಗೆ ಅಪಚಾರ ಮಾಡಿದವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಕೋಪವೂ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಇದು ನಮ್ಮ ದೇವರ ದೊಡ್ಡತನವೇ ಎಂದು ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಭಕ್ತರಿಂದ ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡರೂ ಅವರಿಗೇ ಒಲಿಯುವ ಭಕ್ತಪರಾಧೀನ ನಮ್ಮ ಗಣಪ ! ಅವನು ನಮಗೆ ಎಂಥ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತನಲ್ಲವೇ? ಆದರೂ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತನೆಂದು ಬಹಳ ಹಿಂಸಿಸುವುದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೂ ಇಲ್ಲಸಲ್ಲದ ಉಡುಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಗಣೇಶನಿಗೆ ತೊಡಿಸಿದಾಗ ನನಗೆ ಬೇಜಾರಾಗದೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಮತಾಂಧತೆ ತಾಂಡವವಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಈ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಣೇಶ ನಮಗೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಪಾಠ ಕಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ಇದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಹಾಸ್ಯ ಮುಸ್ಲಿಮರ ಅಥವಾ ಕ್ರಿಶ್ಚಿಯನ್ನರ ದೇವತೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರೆ? ಮೊನ್ನೆ ತಾನೆ ಡೆನ್ಮಾರ್ಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನಡೆದ ಸಂಗತಿಯ ಪುನರಾವೃತ್ತಿಯಾಗುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಹಿಂದು ಧರ್ಮವು ಅವುಗಳಿಗಿಂತ ಸಹಿಷ್ಣು ಎಂದು ಗಣೇಶ ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾನೆ.

ಭಕ್ತಿಯ ಒಂದು ಸ್ನೇಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಅಪಚಾರ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ಕೃಷ್ಣನಿಗೆ ವಿದುರ ಭಕ್ತಿಭಾವದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಳೆಯ ಹಣ್ಣನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವ ಬದಲು ಸಿಪ್ಪೆಯನ್ನು ಕೊಡಲಿಲ್ಲವೇ? ಆದರೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೆಟ್ಟದಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು ಆಧುನಿಕ ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಪಾಲ್ ಕೋರ್‍ಟ್ರೈಟ್ ಎಂಬುವನು ಗಣೇಶನನ್ನು "psycho-analyze" ಮಾಡುವೆ ಹೇಯ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಇದು ಎರಡು ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ದೊಡ್ಡ ರಾದ್ಧಾಂತವನ್ನೇ ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಮುದ್ದಾದ ಗಣೇಶನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅವಹೇಳನಕಾರಿ ಮಾತುಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯಲಾಗದಷ್ಟು ಅಶ್ಲೀಲ ಸಂಗತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಿಂದ ಖೇದಗೊಂಡ ಭಕ್ತರು ಆ ಪುಸ್ತಕದ ಮುದ್ರಣವನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಗಿತಗೊಳಿಸಿದರು. (ನಾನು ಪುಸ್ತಕ ban ವಾದಿಯಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಅಸಹ್ಯವಾದ ಬರವಣಿಗಳನ್ನು ಖಂಡಿಸಲೇಬೇಕು) ಸತ್ಯವಿದ್ದಿದ್ದರೆ ಸರಿ ಎನ್ನಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ವಸ್ತುತಃ ಆ ಪುಸ್ತಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸತ್ಯಾಂಶ ಕಡಿಮೆ. ಪಾಲ್ ಮಹಾಶಯ ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿದ ಕ್ರಮವೂ ತಪ್ಪು. ಅವನ ವಿದ್ವತ್ತೂ ಸರಿಯಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಈ ಕೊಂಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುವ ದೀರ್ಘಲೇಖನದಲ್ಲಿ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ವಿಶಾಲ್ ಅಗರ್ವಾಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲವೈ ವೆಂಕಟ್ ಎಂಬುವರು.

ಹೀಗೆ ಗಣೇಶನಿಂದ - ಯಾವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿಷ್ಣುವಾಗಿರಬೇಕು, ಯಾವ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋರಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಪಾಠವೂ ಆಗಿದೆ.

ಗಣೇಶಚತುರ್ಥಿಯು ಕೇವಲ ಭಕ್ತಿಭರಿತ ವ್ರತವಾಗಿರದೆ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಐಕ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಧನವಾಗಿ ಕೂಡ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದೆಂದು ಲೋಕಮಾನ್ಯ ಬಾಲಗಂಗಾಧರ ಟಿಳಕರು ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇವರ ಈ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನವೇ ಈಗ ರಸ್ತೆ ರಸ್ತೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಗುವ ಗಣೇಶ ಮಿತ್ರ ಮಂಡಲಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಾರಣ. ಅಂದು ಮನೆಮನೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವರ್ಣಮಯ ಗೌರೀ-ಗಣೇಶರ ಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳು ಕಂಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ಮೋದಕ, ಕಡುಬುಗಳು ಮುಂತಾದ ಸಿಹಿತಿನಿಸುಗಳನ್ನು ವಿನಾಯಕನಿಗೆ ನಿವೇದಿಸಿ ಭಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಪೂಜೆ ನೆರವೇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮನೆಗ ಬಂದ ತಾಯಿ-ಮಗನ ಹಾಗೆ ಭಕ್ತರ ಪೂಜಾತಿಥ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಮನೆಯ ಆತ್ಮೀಯ ಸದಸ್ಯರೇ ಆಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರ ಮೃಣ್ಮಯ ಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೀರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡುವಾಗ ಭಕ್ತರಿಗೆಲ್ಲ ದುಃಖ. ನಮ್ಮ ಆತ್ಮೀಯರನ್ನು ಬೀಳ್ಕೊಡುವಾಗ ಆಗುವ ದುಃಖವೇ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ವಿಸರ್ಜನೆಯೂ ಒಂದು ಪಾಠವನ್ನು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಸಂತಸದ ಘಳಿಗೆಗಳೇ ಶಾಶ್ವತವಲ್ಲವೆಂದೂ ಜೀವನದ ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಮರೆಯಬಾರದೆಂದು ಆ ಸಂಭ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಗಣಪ ನಮಗೆ ಮೆಲ್ಲನೆ ಕಿವಿಮಾತು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾನೆ.

ಗಣೇಶನ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿ ಎಲ್ಲ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಕರ್ಣಾಟಕ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರೀಯ ಸಂಗೀತದಲ್ಲಂತೂ ಪಿಳ್ಳಾರಿ ಗೀತೆಗಳಿಂದ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಆರಂಭವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದೂ "ಲಂಬೋದರ ಲಕುಮಿಕರ" ಎಂಬ ಗಣೇಶಸ್ತುತಿಯಿಂದ. ಕಾವ್ಯನಾಟಕಾದಿಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಗಣೇಶಸ್ತುತಿಯೇ. ಈಗಿನ ಚಲನಚಿತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಹಾಗೆಯೇ! ಮನೆಗಳ ಮುಂದೆ ಗಣೇಶನ ಮೂರ್ತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದು ಗಣೇಶನ ಸಂಕೇತವಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ವಿಘ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ನಿವಾರಿಸುವುದು ಎಂದು ನಂಬಿಕೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದೆಡೆ "ಕಲೌ ದುರ್ಗಾವಿನಾಯಕೌ" ಅಂದರೆ ಕಲಿಯುಗದಲ್ಲಿ ದುರ್ಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ವಿನಾಯಕರ ಪೂಜೆಯನ್ನು ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದೆ. ಸಂತಸದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ಆಪತ್ತಿನ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲೂ ಪ್ರೀತಿಯಿಂದ ಸಲಹುವ ಮಿತ್ರನಾಗಿ, ಸರ್ವಕಾಲವೂ ಭಕ್ತರನ್ನು ಕಾಯುವ ದೇವರಾಗಿ ಗಣೇಶ ಎಲ್ಲರ ಪ್ರೀತಿಭಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಪಾತ್ರನಾಗಿರುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಶ್ಚರ್ಯವೇನಿಲ್ಲ.

ಕೆಲಸದ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೋಟ್ಯಂತರ ಜನಗಳು ನೆನೆಯುವ ಆ ಗಣೇಶನು ನಮ್ಮ ವಿಘ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ನಿವಾರಿಸಿ ವಿದ್ಯಾಬುದ್ಧ್ಯಾಯುರಾರೋಗ್ಯೈಶ್ವರ್ಯಗಳನ್ನೂ ಚತುರ್ವಿಧಪುರುಷಾರ್ಥಗಳನ್ನು ಕರುಣಿಸಲಿ ಎಂದು ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಗಣೇಶಾಲೋಕನವನ್ನು ಸಂಪನ್ನಗೊಳಿಸುವೆ.

|| ಇತಿ ಶಮ್ ||

Secure your flock, Reverend - The Da Vinci Code will release soon in India!

The Da Vinci code is a famous novel by Dan Brown. I use the word famous as that is what it is - famous. I read it almost two years ago and I did not consider it spell binding for all the hype it had. I even have my own hard cover edition - gifted to me, of course. It is a good story and quite well written - I must say. But it definitely does not deserve so much hype.

This novel garnered more media attention when Ron Howard decided to direct the movie and guess what - Tom Hanks would be playing the key role of Robert Langdon. Isn't that a winning combination at the box office? I too was looking forward to this movie - in spite of my having read the novel.

But wait! We have our government in India which is supposedly secular but actually uber-religious! The recent tendency began most notoriously with Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses". Many years after this nATak, I managed to get the book from my library in the US and read a few pages from it. I really didn't find it all that offensive - but since I am no Muslim - which Muslim will pay heed to me?

Since then, fatwas have been the order of the day. Because Muslims got easily offended, Hindus too thought (they were partly right too, I feel) that they too were being offended by so many things in the world. So they began their processions to censure MF Husain whenever the chance arose. While painting sarasvatI in the nude is not a wise thing to do for a person living today, we must see that sarasvatI as well as other manifestations of the Divine Mother have been celebrated, clothed or not. Many of the verses in our purANas and tantras would invite the wrath of the puritanical and simple minded VHP type folks. But one thing has to be mentioned here that the underlying feeling was that of deep devotion towards the Divine mother. I don't know if MF Husain deliberately painted Goddess sarasvatI in the nude out of malice. If he has not, I don't think he should be vilified.

Coming to the current case, the Catholic Church in India has decided to edit parts of "The Da Vinci Code" before screening it. Look guys, as everybody understands, this is a fictional work. Even if it is loosely based on history, there is no reason for it to be banned. The clergy can just warn (or even threaten) its flock to stay away from the screening of this movie. I am sure this is what is happening in the US where a hue and cry was raised when Da Vinci code was first released as a book. Mary Magdalene and her relationship with Jesus Christ was discussed ad nauseam everywhere - in print, on the Internet, on TV and even on the radio. When the same book was released in India, why was this not raised? They could have done a Satanic verses on this book as well, right? I think the difference is subtle but significant. The NDA government was ruling at that time and so it would seem to the clergy that their voice would go unheeded. But now we have the lady originally from so close to the Holy See wielding unquestioned power in India that even the normally silent Catholics are getting vociferous. Even in America which is more of a Christian country than India will ever be, this movie was screened without edits. Now why on earth are we indulging in this kind of useless activity? When there are millions of people who wouldn't give a damn (oops..) about what movie you're screening, why should these guys even bother? Keep your flock out of it, Reverend - I say.

But I must say that intolerance of all forms is steadily growing in India. Hindus feel that they are subject to unfair treatment (being a Hindu, I too feel some of it). Historically, muslims have always felt a feeling of persecution. And it is not new to Christians at all, whose ancestors also were persecuted by the Egyptians et al. All of us feel that we are being victimized and each one feels that their faith is in jeopardy. Who is responsible for this? The media, I think, has a pretty big role as without them, nobody would know of any possible 'injustice'. Sometimes I think Marx was right about something being the opium of the masses. But an irreligious society becomes colorless, bland and uninteresting. Religion, organized or not, offers a lot of color and variety to life as a minimum, if not wellness in the life after. Instead of celebrating this diversity, I don't know why people are at each others' necks.

But, as a Hindu, I must say that we have never proselytized. We don't have that kind of zeal to reap a "harvest of souls". We also do not impose jizya on our non-Hindu brethren. We have never converted unwilling people by the strength of the sword and neither have we ridiculed other religions, though simple-minded and primitive they may be (this is my addition). Both the other semitic religions have done everything the Hindus haven't done. The Hindus (I must clarify, the advaitins) also recognize that all paths lead to the Supreme.

Now what or who a Hindu is, is quite a different question and has been answered quite well in one of the links featured in one of my previous postings.

So "the Da Vinci Code" must really be a non-issue to all parties concerned. But only if they pay heed to the little voice in their heads...

ಶ್ರೀಶಂಕರಜಯಂತಿ

ಶ್ರುತಿ-ಸ್ಮೃತಿ-ಪುರಾಣಾನಾಮಾಲಯಂ ಕರುಣಾಲಯಮ್ |
ನಮಾಮಿ ಭಗವತ್ಪಾದಂ ಶಂಕರಂ ಲೋಕಶಂಕರಮ್ ||

ವೈಶಾಖ-ಶುದ್ಧ-ಪಂಚಮಿಯಂದು ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರ ಜಯಂತಿ ಆಚರಿಸುವುದು. ಈ ವರ್ಷ ಅದು ಇಂದಿನ ದಿನ ಬಂದಿದೆ.

ಶ್ರೀಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರಷ್ಟು ಪ್ರಭಾವಶಾಲಿ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕರು ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬರಿಲ್ಲ. ಅವರನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಲಿ ಬಿಡಲಿ, ಅವರು ಹಾಕಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ಮಾರ್ಗವನ್ನೇ ನಂತರದ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕರಾದ ರಾಮಾನುಜಾಚಾರ್ಯರು ಮಧ್ವಾಚಾರ್ಯರೂ ಅವಲಂಬಿಸಿದರು. ಪ್ರಸ್ಥಾನತ್ರಯಗಳಾದ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಸೂತ್ರ-ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತು-ಭಗವದ್ಗೀತೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಭಾಷ್ಯ ಬರೆಯುವ ಕ್ರಮವನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದೇ ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರು. ಇವರು ಪ್ರತಿಪಾದಿಸಿದ್ದು ಅದ್ವೈತವಾದವೆಂದು ಖ್ಯಾತವಾಯ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಾವು ಉಪನಿಷದ್ವಾದಿಗಳೆಂದೂ ಔಪನಿಷದರೆಂದು ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ತಾವೇ ಬಗೆದಿದ್ದರು. ಅದ್ವೈತಿಗೆಳೆಂದು ತಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಶಂಕರರು ಮಠಸ್ಥಾಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಭಾರತದ ಎಲ್ಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರೂಪಿಸಿದರೆಂದು ಎಲ್ಲರ ನಂಬಿಕೆ. ಇದರಿಂದ ಭಾರತ ಎಂಬ ಒಂದು ಸಾಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಆಧ್ಯಾತ್ಮಿಕ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ ಸಮ್ಯಗ್ನಿರೂಪಣೆಯಾಯ್ತೆಂದರೆ ಅತಿಶಯೋಕ್ತಿಯೇನಲ್ಲ.

ಭಾಷ್ಯಗಳನ್ನೇ ಪ್ರಮುಖವಾಗಿ ಬರೆದರೂ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮಂದಾಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಉಪಯೋಗವಾಗಲೆಂದು ಹಲವು ಲಘು ಪ್ರಕರಣಗ್ರಂಥಗಳನ್ನೂ ರಚಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ಪ್ರತೀತಿ. ಇವರದೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲ್ಪಟ್ಟ ಸ್ತೋತ್ರಗಳು (ಸೌಂದರ್ಯಲಹರೀ, ಶಿವಾನಂದಲಹರೀ ಮೊದಲಾದವು) ಇವರವಲ್ಲವೆಂಬುದು ಆಧುನಿಕ ವಿದ್ವಾಂಸರ ಮತ. ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಯೂ ಹಾಗೆ ಇದೆ. ಶಂಕರರ ಹೆಸರನ್ನುಪಯೋಗಿಸಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಕೃತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಚುರಪಡಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬ ಆಸೆಯೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕಾಲಾಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದ ಕವಿಗಳು ಮಾಡಿದ ಕೃತ್ಯಗಳಿವೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಹೇಳಬಹುದು.

ಆದರೆ ಶಂಕರರು ಎಷ್ಟು ಪ್ರಭಾವಶಾಲಿಗಳೋ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ಅಷ್ಟೇ ವಿವಾದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ದುರದೃಷ್ಟವಶಾತ್ ಕೇಳುತ್ತದೆ. ಶೃಂಗೇರಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಂಚೀಪುರದ ಮಠಗಳ ನಡುವಿನ ತಗಾದೆ ಬಹಳ ದೊಡ್ಡದು. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಅಂಗವಾಗಿ ಶಂಕರರ ಕಾಲವನ್ನು ಕ್ರಿ.ಪೂ ಆರನೆ ಶತಮಾನಕ್ಕೆ ತಳ್ಳಲು ಇತಿಹಾಸಜ್ಞ(ಘ್ನ?)ರ ಗುಂಪು ಯತ್ನಿಸಿದೆ. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಕ್ರಿ.ಶ.ಏಳನೇ ಶತಮಾನದವರೆಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಾದ ಆಚಾರ್ಯರರ ಕಾಲವನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಸಾವಿರವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ತಳ್ಳುವ ಸ್ವಾರ್ಥಿಗಳ ಯತ್ನ ನಡೆದಿದೆ. ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಂತರದ ಒಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಒಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಂಚೀಪುರದ ಅಥವಾ ಕುಂಭಕೋಣದ ಮಠದ ಶಂಕರಾಚಾರ್ಯರ ಕ್ರಿ.ಪೂ.ಕಾಲದ ಮತ ಸತ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾವಿರವರ್ಷ ದೂರವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ.

ಶಂಕರರು ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕತೆಯ ದಿಗ್ಗಜರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬರು. ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ಕೆಲವು ಸಂಗತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಮರಿಸಬಹುದು.

ಭಗವದ್ಗೀತೆಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ - "ಸಮಸ್ತವೇದಾಂತಾರ್ಥ-ಸಾರ-ಸಂಗ್ರಹಭೂತಂ ದುರ್ವಿಜ್ಞೇಯಾರ್ಥಮ್"
ಗೀತೆಯು ಸಮಸ್ತ ವೇದಾಂತದ ಅರ್ಥದ ಸಾರಸಂಗ್ರಹಭೂತವಾದರೂ ಇದರ ಅರ್ಥ ತಿಳಿಯುವುದು ಕಷ್ಟ.

"ಸರ್ವಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಿದ್-ಅಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯವಿತ್-ಮೂರ್ಖವದುಪೇಕ್ಷಣೀಯಃ"
ಎಲ್ಲ ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಬಲ್ಲವನಾದರೂ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯದ ಅರ್ಥ-ಮರ್ಯಾದೆಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಯದವನನ್ನು ಮೂರ್ಖನಂತೆ ಉಪೇಕ್ಷೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು.

ಇವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಸಂಗತಿಯೆಂದರೆ - ವೇದಾಧಿಕಾರ ಮತ್ತು ಮೋಕ್ಷಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಬೇರ್ಪಡಿಸಿ - ಸ್ತ್ರೀಯರಾಗಲಿ, ಶೂದ್ರರಾಗಲಿ ಸಮಾಜದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸ್ತರದವರಾದರೂ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಮೋಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರವಿದೆ. ಮೋಕ್ಷಾಧಿಕಾರಕ್ಕೂ ವೇದಾಧಿಕಾರಕ್ಕೂ ಸಂಬಂಧವಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದು ಆಗಿನ ಎಂಥ ಒಂದು ಕ್ರಾಂತಿಕಾರಕ ಮಾತೆಂದು ತೋರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ವಸ್ತುತಃ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತುಗಳ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೋಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಇದ್ದಿತು. ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣರ ದಬ್ಬಾಳಿಕೆ ಎಂದೆಲ್ಲಾ ಹೇಳುವವರು ಪರಮ-ಪುರುಷಾರ್ಥವಾದ ಮೋಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಅಧಿಕಾರವನ್ನು ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ಮೊದಲೇ ನೀಡಿದೆ - ಎಂದು ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕು. ಅಂಥವರ ಹೋರಾಟ ಇದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದ ಬಳಿಕೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪವಾದರೂ ಕಡಿಮೆಯಾಗಬಹುದು ಅಲ್ಲವೇ?

ಇವರ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಧೀರವಾಕ್ಯ ಹೀಗಿದೆ - "ನೂರು ಶ್ರುತಿಗಳು ಬೆಂಕಿ ತಣ್ಣಗಿದೆಯೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೂ ಅದರಿಂದ ಬೆಂಕಿ ತಣ್ಣಗಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ". ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಸ್ವಾರಸ್ಯ ಗಮನಿಸಲು ಶ್ರುತಿಪ್ರಾಮಾಣ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯಬೇಕು. ಶಂಕರರು ಅನುಭವದ ಪಾರಮ್ಯವನ್ನೇ ಹಿಡಿದವರು. ಇದರ ಜೊತೆಗೆ - ಮುಕ್ತಿ ಜೀವನಾನಂತರ ಕಾಣುವ ಒಂದಾನೊಂದು ಅವಸ್ಥೆಯಲ್ಲ - ಈ ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲೇ ಮುಕ್ತಿ ಸಾಧ್ಯ - ಅದೇ ಜೀವನ್ಮುಕ್ತಿಯೆಂದು ಸಾರಿದರು.

ಶಂಕರರನ್ನು ಈಗಿನ ಕಾಲದವರು ಪಟದಲ್ಲಿರಿಸಿ ಪೂಜೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇವೆ. ಅವರು ಏನು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾರೆಂಬುದರ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಗಮನ ಹರಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅವರ ಮೂರ್ತಿಗೆ ರುದ್ರಾಭಿಷೇಕ ಮಾಡಿ ಹೂವೇರಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿದ ವಿಚಾರದೆಡೆ ಗಮನ ಹರಿಸುವುದೇ ಅವರಿಗೆ ನಾವು ಮಾಡಬಹುದಾದ ನಿಜವಾದ ಪೂಜೆಯೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ವಿಚಾರ.

|| ಇತಿ ಶಮ್ ||

Hindu - what does it mean?

APPENDIX 3 - MEANING OF THE WORD “HINDU”

The above is a link to an appendix in Sitaram Goel's book. It is an informative and thoughtprovoking piece on the word 'Hindu' and its fortunes down the ages. This comes all the way from how contemptuously the word 'Hindu' was used by Zoroastrians and later by Muslims to how it was used with pride during the 14th Century CE by various Hindu kings. It doesn't stop there but continues with how the British/Communist/Christian imperialists view the word 'Hindu'. Now, the so-called Dalits are using Hindu as a four letter word.

The word has travelled through the ages and means different things to different people. Click on the above link to read more.

Song of Kali - A Novel of Horror

Song of Kali - Google Search

I came across this book when I was reading something about Dan Simmons, an author I had just come across. I read a piece by Dan Simmons on how the world would be if Islam took over - a scary but well written piece. Then I saw that his first big novel was titled "Song of Kali" and that this book had apparently won a Fantasy award when it was published in 1985-86.

Upon reading the gist, I found the idea of the story to be revolting. Apparently Dan Simmons had stayed for two days in Calcutta when he got so "enamoured" of the place that he got the idea for this novel. A synopsis of the novel from Amazon is as follows

The story concerns an American poet who travels with his Indian wife and their baby to Calcutta to pick up an epic poem cycle about the goddess Kali. The Bengali poet who wrote the poem cycle has disappeared under mysterious circumstances.

The synopsis doesn't say it but I gathered from other sites that Goddess Kali had been portrayed as the Goddess of Death in the book. Further, Kali is likened to an evil spirit (much like Imhotep in the movie "the Mummy" and Voldemort in Harry Potter) that desires to be brought back from the dead so that the world could be ruled. Not just that, but Calcutta is shown to be hell on earth - the worst possible place that exists.

Upon reading this set of synopses and ignorant reviews, I, as a Hindu, was appalled at the way Kali and Calcutta had been shown in the book. In fact, this book might have caused several Western readers to have a revulsion towards India, sanAtana dharma and Kali in particular. I also felt a lot of anger and pity at the sheer stupidity of the author for not having gauged Kali (of course, Kali is not a concept that can be easily understood by adherents of simple minded good-bad religions) correctly. Since the book was published in the mid 80s, when there was no world wide web and as much communication as we have now, it must have created this barrier against India and her religions in the minds of the readers. To be fair, I have not read the book but Kali is definitely not the goddess of death. One must be a fool to say this.

Kali is Prakriti and She dances on Shiva who is Purusha. One can say that Kali is Brahman in action (very crude way of explaining things). She is beyond the mundane. One has to study the shAkta purANas, the tantras or at least the durgA saptashatI to see what Kali even feels like. Of course, knowing Kali would be Realization itself. The concept of kAlI is great but some of the methods in which She is worshipped can bring fear into the hearts of even the most ardent of devotees. She is worshipped in Right and Left paths (samayAchAra and vAmAchara). The Right (as in Left and Right and not as in Right and Wrong) path involves worship with flowers, fruits and such sAttvika elements. The Left path is the more horrifying one involving the pancha ma (the five mas including mAmsa (flesh), madya(liquor) and other things) in the milder cases and can possibly go to even human sacrifice. Though the Left mode of worship is followed mostly while worshipping kAlI, it is mostly restricted to animal sacrifice and possibly some liquor - but nowadays human sacrifice is unheard of (I do see a rare case once every few years- but that is hardly how kAlI is worshipped by most people). The English reader could study Arthur Avalon's (John Woodroffe's) works on Shakti to get a good idea. I don't know if this Simmons person went through these books at all. But even the best books do not illumine those who don't want to be illumined. And you have so many forms of kAlI - bhadrakAlI, soumyakAlI, dakShiNakAlI etc., Only a person bent upon propagating ignorance would call kAlI the goddess of Death. Even in the semitic religions, God strikes down the "infidels". Now, can He be called the God of Death and Jealousy by other religionists? That is exactly what Simmons has done.

And about Calcutta, it is in its present state owing mainly to the British and now the Communists. In spite of my not having been there, I don't think Calcutta becomes hell on earth. What would you call quite a few places in the Middle East then? What would you call North Korea?

It is a tragedy that such a work got the World Fantasy award and is being reprinted as a twentieth anniversary edition. We now know where the West is getting its biases from.

'Varanasi attack linked to anti-Bush protests'

'Varanasi attack linked to anti-Bush protests'

I did not expect LK Advani to make such a statement in the wildest of dreams. If someone wanted to protest Bush's visit, they should have done so when Bush was in India. Bombing a totally unrelated place for something else is total equine excrement. Reading his statement in detail, it seems as if Advani basically wants us to know that the elements behind the anti-Bush protests were the same as those that set off explosions in the Hanuman temple. Though I kind of agree with that statement, he should have worded it more carefully.

For me, this bombing is a clear act of terrorism. Such attacks will continue till the government actually tries to do something about it. On December 13 2001, the Parliament was attacked and yet India did nothing. Akshardham, the Delhi blasts and the Bangalore attacks happened - but still nothing. The Varanasi attack is just another in the sequence. Won't this encourage the terrorists to do more? I think we have a good executive and a good judiciary - but the legislative arm of the country has been rendered ineffective because it's been infected to the bone by self-serving politicians.

Outlook's web Bureau goes as far as insinuating that some extremist Hindus (read Sangh parivar) caused the explosions in vArANasI, so that it could create an excuse for them to indulge in violence against 'minorities'. That is a dangerous and irresponsible opinion. For all its evils, I don't believe that the Sangh organizations can indulge in such shameful violence, though they might resort to retaliatory violence. Outlook again accused Advani of using this tragic incident to extract political mileage, while a Muslim leader has been praised for his call for peace and restraint. I knew that Outlook was left-leaning - but I did not know that it could go to such lows.

Basically what is happening now is that the news channels are having a field day - they don't have to look for an item to report! This incident has happened. So expect them to show pictures of the injured and interviews with the relatives of the deceased ad nauseam for another week. Such insensitive and TRP-mongering news reporting brings out the worst cynic in me.

vArANasI is the cultural and spiritual capital of India. By attacking the temple of Hanuman - who is considered as an icon of strength and bravery - and that too in vArANasI, I can understand what message the terrorists are trying to convey. They are saying - "look, we bombed the temple of the God you worship as the embodiment of physical and mental strength, that too in your most holy city and nothing seems to be happening" to demoralise Hindus. I think it is time for Lord Hanuman to take the matter into His own hands now. If not, is it in our fate to witness even worse incidents before it is time?

UPA government's dangerous move to communalise the Armed Forces

The Acorn >> It's vital to keep religion out of it

This is one piece of news I had been wanting to write about. The Acorn has written about it so eloquently and well that I just need to link to that article.

Read it to see how the UPA government is bent upon making India backward.

A history of sorts ? (via outlookindia.com)

Just wanted to highlight the plight of Hindus in Pakistan. Krishan Bheel is a really bold man. Just think of it - a Hindu MP slapping a Muslim MP - an influential one and a Maulvi to boot - and that too in Pakistan !

You can read more here.

Flying in India - Shivkar Talpade?

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec16/snt2.asp

This is a very interesting article which speaks of Shivkar Talpade pioneering flight a full 8 years before the Wright brothers did (in 1895). Apparently Shivkar's research was based on Samskrit treatises on vaimAnikashAstra. It would be great if this had been true. I would believe it completely had Stephen Knapp's name not been mentioned.

Stephen Knapp has a web site that is pro-Hindu. But it also claims that Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple with pretty poor proof. Any pattern is dubbed 'vedic'. That is another thing I hate nowadays. People are bringing the Veda to everyday life to the extent that soon we'll have vedic tea, vedic coffee and vedic TV. Why the urge to prefix everything under the sun with vedic?

The veda is supreme for me even if it does not talk about quarks or the distance from the earth to the sun or the string theory. It is like a mother to me even if it calls the sun rising and setting. Because the physical realm is not where the veda rules but in the spiritual. What else can declare in words that words and mind cannot reach it ? "yato vAcho nivartante aprApya manasA saha". That, is the realm of the veda and not something like vedic nuclear science or vedic toothpaste. Study of the veda traditionally and with a shraddhA-strengthened intellect should let us into the secrets of the veda.

What can you say to those who think that the puruSha sUkta has coded the distance between the earth and the sun?

Meat/Beef eating and Dharma

I am a member of a particular mailing list which had discussions on how Mecca/Medina were Hindu temples of a bygone era. The proof given was not rigorous but something that seemed to be made up. One thing led to another and we had a discussion on whether beef was eaten during the vedic times or not. At a certain point, I was especially irritated when someone mentioned that "if a person eats beef, he ceases to be Hindu". That got me writing this post.

To make things clear, I have been a strict lacto-vegetarian all my life and I have no intention of changing that.

I, for one, will not be bothered if it is conclusively shown that people in vedic times ate beef. I won't be bothered even if it were shown that beef was never eaten. My contention is simply that sanAtana dharma won't be affected if it is shown either way and one will not cease to be a Hindu just because he/she ate beef. karma will accumulate and bad health will also result - but I am not going there.

What constitutes Dharma externally has changed over the ages. Beef eating for instance did not make it adharma in the vedic ages. But after the middle ages (circa 12th century CE, I think) and islamic invasion, beef eating and cow slaughter began to be considered adharma. It could also be the case that in our pastoral culture, the cow came to be regarded very highly and so could not be killed. Whatever the reason that made it adharma, it seems to be the case that beef eating existed during vedic times.

There is one particular proof to show that BhavabhUti, one of Samskrit's greatest poets, mentions sage VasiShTha eating beef. The sage actually requests for some tender meat of a young calf as his teeth were getting old. This proof in itself is quite significant. Because, why would BhavabhUti show vasiShTha eating beef? Did he have a blatant agenda like DN Jha (author of the much maligned book on beef eating in the vedas) who is a known leftist? As chroniclers of a particular era, poets and dramatists provide great contribution to history. How else can we see dharma in action if we can't have stories of people that actually followed it? It is from that perspective that I gave this example. And if BhavabhUti has given an example, it has considerable weight and needs our attention.

I say, "if a Hindu in a bygone era ate beef, so be it". I personally may or may not want to do that. But the thing to know is that it won't affect Dharma mainly because Dharma, though having external representations, is mainly mental, intellectual and spiritual.

I have a question to people who read this. Who is a better person ? A beef eating Dalai Lama or an especially harmful vegetarian? So what I am trying to say is even though meat eating is considered rAjasika and generally considered a bad habit, a meat eater may show better concern towards his fellow beings than a vegetarian because of his adherence to dharma. Who was more virtuous ? The brAhmaNa kaushika or the butcher dharmavyAdha?

Of course, eating meat constantly may cause a rAjasika mind to develop. Also eating meat causes more harm to the environment than not eating it. But these are different arguments from whether a person ate meat in the past. For example - it is the way of Eskimos to eat fish. Can you expect them to eat anything else? Are they worse people because they eat fish? I am sure Ramakrishna Paramahamsa ate fish and so did Swami Vivekananda. So, are they worse than a south Indian vegetarian brahmin who spent his life criticising non-vegetarians?

Someone also mentioned that there was no meat eating in the vedas. To them I can say - strive to be better informed. There have been yajnas where the fat (vapa) from a pashu has been used. The people who conduct the yajna have to partake some meat (not a great amount - but some). Such yajnas have happened even recently. And please don't give me the Kaliyuga answer. The concept of yugas as a means to perform or not perform some actions are, in my opinion, mere arthavAda. I am with the mImAMskas on this - "na chAnIdRshaM jagat kadAchit" - which means "the world (or more specifically its inhabitants) was never different from the current world". But that needs a separate post.

Anyway, modern Hindus, especially those heavily influenced by the RSS/VHP, become very touchy when such issues are discussed. (Note: I am sympathetic to RSS/VHP but they have to understand that sanAtana Dharma is not a monolithic religion like Islam) I say to them, your Dharma is indeed greater than these petty concerns. Why do you even worry about this? Do you, instead, perform all your daily duties - social and spiritual? For example, if somebody calls himself a brahmin, he has to perform sandhyAvandanaM thrice a day at the minimum. That will be his dharma. Of course there are vishESha dharmas, but it is left to the individuals to identify those. Do these people do their regular dharma? Are they honest? I will call someone a better Hindu if he/she performs these activities than go out and shout one's throat hoarse over an event that has been sensationalized.

So, should we just sit at home doing our individual activities without going to the aid of our dharma? Should we practise unconditional ahimsA like Gandhi?

My answer is a loud NO! Our dharma advocates ahimsA - but not pacifism. Krishna told Arjuna - "yudhyasva vigatajvaraH". He addressed Arjuna as "parantapa" (scorcher of foes). But those become vishESha dharmas. For instance, vasiShTha ate the meat of a dog from a chaNDAla as the former was starving. He made prAyashchitta after that. At that point dehadhAraNa (sustenance of life in the body) was more important than anything else. So, if push comes to shove, it will be expected of everybody to contribute in a similar manner. Our conscience is the decision maker. That is the final court of appeal.

One thing I have noticed is that Dharma comes in hierarchies. For example, suppose a person sees his criminal son committing a gruesome murder and is unable to prevent it. His citizen-dharma asks him to turn him over to the police whereas the dharma of a father calls for his child's protection. In this case, the citizen's dharma is more important than that of a father and so, exhorts him to send his son to jail. This is decided by the person's buddhi. But it isn't simple all the time. For example, Krishna says in the gItA - "svadharme nidhanaM shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahaH". - "It is better to die performing one's duty than doing someone else's which is more dangerous". But what is our svadharma? Is it static all the time? Does it change? In my opinion - all the time. For example, a man can be son, father, husband, teacher, soldier, citizen, human being - all at the same time. What dharma to follow at what time is the question. This for anybody (at least myself) is difficult to answer. But once dharma is followed it brings us long lasting happiness and satisfaction. At no point of time will a dhArmika be ashamed of one's action. That, in my opinion, is how to identify dharma.

So is it still OK to sit back when people are denigrating our deities?

No! Denigrating deities like Ganesha and Shiva by the likes of Wendy and her students should definitely be not tolerated and should be protested. We should strive to educate them and fight their malicious intentions. But don't lose track of your path by helping some one else on the way.

But if somebody shows conclusively (this is also left for us to decide) that a sage ate beef a while ago, it should not be our problem. If modern RSS/VHP Hindus are so touchy about this, they should know that they are betraying the diverse character of the Hindu society that they claim to represent. In fact, by being very touchy and protesting about these things, we have unfortunately become the enemy we love to hate.

Hinduism is not a monolithic religion like Islam or Christianity. There are hundreds of denominations, millions of deities and thousands of gurus. How do you choose what sanAtana dharma is from these? Vedas can be claimed to be the bedrock of Hinduism and yet you have tAntric people claiming that their Agamas are higher than the vedas. Are they not Hindus? Of course they are. And this is what people tend to forget when they try to make a monolithic religion out of Hinduism.

I hope I have made myself clear in where I stand on this. I should write more on this to give form to my thoughts. I will post references from the veda when I get the chance.

|| iti sham ||

Katas Raj

Katas Raj is the name of a Hindu site of pilgrimage. It is now in Pakistan. Though this place has many references to it in the purAnAs and the mahAbhArata, I got to know of this place only recently - after Advani's controversial trip to Pakistan. It is known in Pakistan as Katas (no Raj after the name)

Apparently the name kaTAs rAj is derived from kaTAkSha (meaning glance). This place is supposed to be one of the places where Lord Shiva wept out of grief on His wife's (Sati) death. The profuse tears from Shiva's eyes filled two lakes. One is the present Katas and other is a site in Ajmer. The more interesting aspect of this lake is that the Pandavas spent four out of their twelve years of exile here.

A note of clarification here - it was Lord Rama of the rAmAyaNa who was exiled for fourteen years. The Pandavas were asked to spend twelve years in exile and an additional year incognito (which they spent at virATa's kingdom).

Back to Katas, yudhiShThira, the eldest of the pANDavas, exhibited his wisdom in answering the questions of an invisible yakSha. This wise act essentially gave life to the other pANDavas who were lying dead after drinking the water of this pool.

This is a fascinating story in the mahAbhArata and is wonderfully thought-provoking. For details, go here

The temple and lake constituted a great pilgrimage centre till the Partition of India. The temple was hopelessly defaced during Muslim invasions and mainly after the partition and its picture below (from the BBC) speaks volumes about the defacement and destruction wrought upon this temple.



Below: A picture of the deity (from Outlook India) at the Katas temple



This brings to mind the thought that less than sixty years ago, this place was India too. Anybody in India could have gone there. This barrier between India and Pakistan is after all man-made. The fact that man-made barriers have caused physical and cultural damage to this extent is overwhelming.

To be fair to the Pakistani government, they want to identify this as a world heritage site and develop it further. Of course, they will get some much needed tourism money from Sindhis and other Indians for whom Katas is really important.

An informative (but in a rather condescending tone) article can be found here.

I hope the peace process between India and Pakistan goes on in a peaceful manner.

ಏಳು ನೂರು ಅಡಿಯ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಮೂರ್ತಿ ರಾಮನಗರದ ಬಳಿ

ಈಚೆಗೆ ಶಾರುಖ್ ಖಾನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇನ್ನಷ್ಟು ನಟನಟಿಯರು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಷೋ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಅದು ನಡೆದದ್ದು ಸಂಘಮಿತ್ರ ಫೌಂಡೇಶನ್ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಘಟನೆಯ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ. ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಒಂದು ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆಯ ಗುರಿಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಆ ಗುರಿಯೇನೆಂದರೆ - ಏಳುನೂರು ಆಡಿಯ ಬುದ್ಧನ ವಿಗ್ರಹದ ಸ್ಥಾಪನೆ.

ವಿಗ್ರಹವೆಲ್ಲಿ ಎಂದು ಶೀರ್ಷಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲೇ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಬಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ರಾಮನಗರದಲ್ಲೇ. ನಿಮಗೆ ಜ್ಞಾಪಕವಿರಬಹುದು - ಶೋಲೆ ಎಂಬ ಭಾರೀ ಹಿಂದೀ ಚಿತ್ರದ ಚಿತ್ರೀಕರಣ ಇಲ್ಲೇ ನಡೆದದ್ದು.

ಮೂರ್ನಾಲ್ಕು ವರ್ಷದ ಹಿಂದೆ ತಾಲಿಬಾನ್ ಆಡಳಿತದ ಅಫ್ಘಾನಿಸ್ತಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಮಿಯಾನ್ ಎಂಬ ಸ್ಥಳದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೃಹತ್ತಾದ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮದ್ದನ್ನಿಟ್ಟು ಸಿಡಿಸಲಾಯ್ತು. ಇದೀಗ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದರ ಪುನರ್ಜನ್ಮವೆಂಬಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತಿದೆ.

ಹೊರಗಿನಿಂದ ನೋಡಿದರೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಆಲೋಚನೆಯೆಂದೆನಿಸಬಹುದು. ಗೌತಮ ಬುದ್ಧ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇಶದ ದಾರ್ಶನಿಕಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗ್ರಗಣ್ಯ. ಅವನ ಶಾಂತಿ ಸಂದೇಶ ಪ್ರಪಂಚದಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹರಡಿದೆ. ಅವನ ತತ್ತ್ವಚಿಂತನೆ ಆಳವಾಗಿದ್ದು ವಿಶ್ವದಲ್ಲೆಡೆ ಅವನ ಅನುಯಾಯಿಗಳಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವನ ಜನ್ಮದ ದೇಶವಾದ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವನ ಗುರುತಿಗಾಗಿ ಏನಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಮೂರ್ತಿನಿರ್ಮಾಣದ ಕಾರ್ಯ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ವಸ್ತುಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಬೇರೆ. ರಾಮನಗರದ ಪ್ರದೇಶ ಹಲವು ಸಸ್ಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಾಣಿಸಂಕುಲಗಳಿಗೆ ಸ್ಥಾನವಾಗಿದೆ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ನೋಡಿದರೆ - ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಡಿಸ್ನಿಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬುದ್ಧಲ್ಯಾಂಡ್ ಮಾಡಲು ಹೊರಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾಗುವ ಸ್ಥಳ ಹಲವು ಎಕರೆಗಳಷ್ಟು. ಇವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ನೆಲಸಮಮಾಡಿಯೇ ಬೇರೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಸಾಧ್ಯ. ಈ ಸಸ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಣಿಸಂಕುಲಗಳ ನಿರ್ನಾಮಕ್ಕೆ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಇದನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸಿ ಪರಿಸರಾಂದೋಲನ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿವೆ. ಇದರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರವನ್ನು ಈ ಸಂಘಮಿತ್ರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ತನ್ನ ಬುಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವಂತಿದೆ.

ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಹೀಗಿದೆ. ಇವರಿಗೆ ಬುದ್ಧನ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವಷ್ಟು ಭಕ್ತಿಯಿದ್ದರೆ - ಬರಗಾಲ ಪೀಡಿತವಾದ ಉತ್ತರಕರ್ಣಾಟಕದ ರಾಯಚೂರು, ಗುಲ್ಬರ್ಗ, ಬೀದರ್ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಇದರಿಂದ ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನಗಳಿಗೆ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಾವಕಾಶ ದೊರೆಯುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ರಾಮನಗರ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ತೀರಾ ಸಮೀಪದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನರು ಉದ್ಯೋಗಕ್ಕೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೇ ಬರಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಸ.ಸಂ ನ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಅಷ್ಟು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯದಲ್ಲವೆಂಬಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಬಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ತಂಡೋಪತಂಡವಾಗಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಜನರು ನುಗ್ಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಯಾವುದೋ ದೂರದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಪ್ರಯೋಜನವಾದರೂ ಏನು?

ದುರದೃಷ್ಟವಶಾತ್ ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರ್ ಅವರು ಬೌದ್ಧಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದರು. ಇದು ದುರದೃಷ್ಟ ಹೇಗೆಂದರೆ - ಇವರ ಬೆಂಬಲಿಗರಾದ ದಲಿತರನ್ನು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಈ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ಮರುಳು ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಪ್ರತಿಮೆಯನ್ನು ವಿರೋಧಿಸುವವರನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ದಲಿತ ಜನಾಂಗದ ವೈರಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಕಾಣಲು ಸ.ಸಂ ಕುಚೋದ್ಯ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು - ಮಾಡಿಯೇ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿದೇ ಹಲವು ದಲಿತ ಮುಖಂಡರು ತಮ್ಮ ಪಂಗಡಕ್ಕೆ ಹೆಸರು (ಪಬ್ಲಿಸಿಟಿ) ಬರಲಿ ಎಂದು ಇವರ ಜೊತೆ ಸೇರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆಗ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ತೀರಾ ಹದೆಗೆಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಪಾಪ, ಅಂಬೇಡ್ಕರರು ದೇಶಭಕ್ತರು. ಜಾತೀಯತೆಯ ಸೋಂಕಿಲ್ಲದ ಭಾರತೀಯ ಮೂಲದ್ದೇ ಆದ ಬೌದ್ಧಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಇದರ ಅರಿವು ಅವಿರಿಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ದಲಿತರಿಗೆ ಬೌದ್ಧ ಧರ್ಮ (ನವಬೌದ್ಧರೆಂದೇ ಇವರು ಕರೆಯಲ್ಪಡುವುದು) ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದು identity ಆಗಿದೆ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಬಂಡಾಯದ ಸಂಕೇತವೂ ಆಗಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅದರ ತತ್ತ್ವಶ್ರೀಯನ್ನು ಅವರೆಂದು ಕಂಡಾರೋ!

ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಬುದ್ಧಿ ಬಂದು ಇದನ್ನು ಮಂಜೂರು ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರಲಿ ಎಂದು ಬುದ್ಧನನ್ನೇ ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥಿಸುವ.

|| ಇತಿ ಶಮ್ ||

The New Yorker: Darwin's Enemies

The New Yorker: Fact

This is a great article that brings out the badness of the new "intelligent design" theory. Well, I shouldn't say it is new for it has been around since time immemorial.

In the US, parts of which are extremely conservative, attempts are being made to project "I.D" as a valid explanation for the way things are.

This article brings out the crux of the ID theory and then goes to show why these ideas are faulty. A very thought provoking article.

Something that is similar to this is happening in India too - the truth is not being taught in classrooms and theories that are closer to the truth are getting suppressed.

The Aryan Invasion Theory has now been widely discredited. Why, scientists and historians are even speaking of an out-of-India theory wherein after a very early migration from Africa, which is supposed to be the place where all life began, into South Asia, man then migrated to other parts of Europe and the world.

Contrast this with the theory where "fair skinned Aryans" rode on their horses from the Eurasian steppes, conquered the "dark skinned natives" and drove them to South India. This theory, popularly known as the Aryan Invasion Theory, has been discredited for the past twenty years and more. But this unfortunately has caused a lot of harm - Hitler's Aryan myth had disastrous results. The DMK's half-baked self-hating ideology is also rooted in this Invasion theory. Even though this theory has been well discredited, secessionists, Islamic militants, Marxists and Christian Evangelists of various hues hold on very dearly to this theory as it serves their selfish needs.

As a result of all this, "Aryan Invasion" is what I studied in school. After "growing up", I now have developed a theory agnosticism. History is good - but should not be used for petty political and social gain. But the Truth, whatever it may be, is important and should not be subordinated to a pet political idea.

Acknowledging the "Aryan Invasion idea" as just a theory should be enough for children. Politics should not enter the classroom. But in India, as in the US, political attempts to brainwash a generation, have entered classrooms. This situation is indeed deplorable.

It is interesting - whatever government comes to power, the pet ideas of that Government are foisted on the people. Bush's Christist agenda is amply reflected in the ID vs. Evolution debate. The Congress party's anti-Hindu and anti-truth agenda and the BJP's pro-Hindu agenda are clearly reflected in their text book policies.

The article is thought provoking. But, though I am not an atheist, evolution still seems a viable theory to me.

Another idea that seems funny in Christism* is that God made Man in His own image. Why ? The dinosaurs probably thought that God was like them! The cats and dogs probably think that God made themin His image! Don't Christists fight against idolatory? Isn't making God a human shaped being idolatory? By restricting God to a human like appearance, they essentially limit what God is and isn't. This, according to me, is blasphemy. sanAtana dharma, Buddhism and most non-Semitic religions don't have this problem. Some parts of Hinduism like the Hare Krishnas, dvaitins and other devotional sects believe in a personal physical form of God, in spite of God being transcendental. But Advaitins place no such restriction on God. For God is what is and is free of attachment to any form. God can take a form or may not.

Darwin's theory is remarkable for its scope and simplicity. It is not a sacred cow but it looks like it is a very plausible theory. (As for Marx and Freud discussed in the article, the Christists are my friends)

*(not Christianity - as they derogatorily refer to other religions as 'isms and so I'm paying them back in the same coin. This terminology is courtesy Prof S Kalyanaraman)

Tipu Sultan again

I am almost done reading a well researched book on Tipu. It is by Prof HD Sharma - the original being in English. I read a Kannada translation - which was good but the translation of the letters written by Tipu are difficult to read. There is a translation touch to it - you can feel that it is a translation. The author has done some extensive research and has a good reference list at the end of the book. He has referred to the India Office archives in London where most of Tipu's correspondence and effects lie.

The book is not big at all. It is close to 200 pages. A simple gist of the book is as follows.

Tipu was a bigot on the same level as Mahmud Ghazni, Aurangzeb, Mohammed bin Tughlaq and Alla-ud-din Khilji. So, if we already know what the others have done, Tipu has matching deeds.

According to the book, Haider Ali, Tipu's father surprisingly comes out as a good leader and a king, in spite of some of his bad deeds. I was surprised as a lot of people from Chitradurga (where Haider Ali defeated Madakarinayaka, the local chieftain) loath Haider while being indifferent about Tipu.

Tipu's political life is in two phases one from 1767-1792 and the second one from 1792-1799. The phase break came because of Tipu's defeat in the Third Mysore war after which he became neurotic.

In the first phase of his life/rule, Tipu comes across as a ruthless, tyrannical despot with a level of bigotry that would make even Osama bin Laden look to Tipu with awe. Haider Ali for all his faults had a few merits. He hired the local Hindu people to look after his army and administration. Diwan Purnaiah was the most important of the lot. Haider was clever enough to recognize talent and use it and not be clouded by affiliation to religion. He kept religion and politics separate and in that aspect he was truly a secular ruler.

There are claims to Tipu's having many Hindu officials. They were the ones who remained after Haider's death and Tipu's ascent to the 'throne'. Tipu actually removed several Hindu officials and replaced them with Muslim ones, even though they were illiterate.

Tipu perpetrated horrors in the Malabar region and in the state of Travancore where he forcibly converted thousands of Hindus and Christians to Islam. The rest were killed. In fact, a note written by Tipu orders one of his commanders to kill 5000 people to instill fear in the people. It is estimated that Tipu destroyed at least 8000 Hindu temples. He was a very religious Muslim and read from the Quran every day and followed its edicts quite literally.

Haider Ali had at least bothered to put on the mask of a regent while pretending to serve the Wodeyar King of Mysore. With Tipu, even the mask was lost. Tipu imprisoned the Royal Family of Mysore and ill treated them. He even took a few Hindu women associated with his administrative officials and other royal families forcibly into his harem. In fact, he had Diwan Purnaiah's niece in his harem. This is to show the 'good' feeling Tipu had for his ministers.

He had a lot of people killed in Srirangapatna and Melkote also because they seemed to support the Wodeyar family. It is believed that he had the supporters of the royal family hanged (at least 800 families including women and children) from the trees in a tamarind grove close to the Sri Ranganatha temple. To give an idea of the horrible punishments Tipu meted out, he had a commander very close to Haider Ali, Krishna Rao, killed by dropping him alive in a pan of boiling oil. Tipu then took the wife of Krishna Rao forcibly into his harem. To compound it, the execution of Krishna Rao was based on flimsy reasons. The royal family of Travancore was subjected to similar ignominies when the bodies of the royal family members were subject to humiliating treatments.

However, there are records to show his devotion towards Hindu Temples. This happened because of the change in mind after his defeats to the British - which was more out of fear than any wisdom. He consulted astrologers and sought their advice more readily than from his maulvis and imams. Even then, Tipu did not stop to solicit help from several Muslim rulers around the world. These messages had a common refrain - "Let's make India a Muslim country and let's kill the "atheists"". Atheists referred to non-Muslims and Muslims like the Nizam of Hyderabad. In fact, the inscription on his famous sword expresses similar emotions.

There were a few positive qualities of Tipu also. 5'8" in height (not a positive quality, just mentioned it), he was a simple dresser and loved his wives and children a lot. He was a brave warrior and very energetic and enthusiastic. He actually banned the sale of intoxicants in his kingdom. He was well trained in Persian, Arabic, Urdu, Kannada and the other local languages and loved to engage in letter writing very frequently. He even kept a journal of his dreams. He was supposed to be an excellent horse rider. He respected his mother a lot and made at least a show of listening to her.

Towards his end, we see Tipu becoming a nervous wreck requesting for many pujas and yajnas to be performed to ward off evil. He continued to write letters to France, Egypt, Turkey and Afghanistan requesting for help - but none arrived. He died on May 4 1799 when he was trying to retreat to his palace from the Srirangapatna fort. He did not die fighting as expressed by many historians. He was buried next to his father and mother. The British, the Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad proved to be real enemies to Tipu.

To sum up, Tipu was not a freedom fighter and neither was he secular because he did not have such ideas at all. He was quite a selfish ruler who could stoop down to any level if permitted by the political conditions. He was a bigot heavily influenced by Islamic theological training at a young age (In fact, Haider Ali deplored this teaching). Also, Tipu was never trained in any religion other than Islam contrary to what is reported in TV serials and popular books. His tyrannical rule adversely affected tens of thousands of families in Kerala and the Malabar region and even in his own kingdom. His death gave a lot of relief to families across South India. That probably is the reason why the British were welcomed in Karnataka.

One of these days, I will go to Srirangapatna and spend the entire day there looking at the different places associated with Tipu's life.