Formulas Won't Work

Not only am I not the right person but I am also the wrong person to
share this, as a sannyasi.  However, being part of society, I am
sharing my reflection.  Recently hundreds of couples gathered to
insist the value of the relationship between husband and wife in a
famous ashram, in Tamilnadu.  They even took vows holding each other's
hands.  And after the programme, one woman, appreciating such
gatherings to teach the younger generations, who do not understand
many values in life, said, 'Three things are taught to us: "No
comment; no command and no demand."'

Though I appreciate the noble purpose of the organizers of such
meeting, yet providing some simple formulas won't actually help people
in real life.  It is interesting that such gatherings were arranged to
strengthen the relationship and bond between husband and wife. But a
formula is given just opposite to such a bond and relationship.

Every human relationship is important for an individual, family and
community (also society at large) to grow.  And it is possible only
when we 'comment, command and even demand' several things from each
other.  Of course we can use a better word for 'comment' as 'advice or
counsel'; 'command' as 'request' and 'demand' as 'rights'.  But
whichever words we might use, any relationship can develop and
function when there is mutual contribution by all these means.
Imagine a relationship between a husband and wife without any
'comment, command and demand'.  Though I don't have personal
experience in this field, based on other relationships that I enjoy, I
can say with much confidence that all relationships will remain not
only dry but also boring without contributing each other through our
'comment, command and demand.'  Because, we can summarize all these
three words in one word: COMMUNICATION.  And those who try to live
strictly implementing such formulas won't have any communication with
anyone.  We can observe that not even animals can survive or thrive if
such formula is followed.

The problem with human beings sometimes is that, in the name of doing
certain things differently, we completely lose track and get lost in
such formulas and programmes.  But the only consolation for me is
that, like many other such programmes and formulas, we will never
implement them, but will live naturally 'commenting, commanding and
demanding' in our life enjoying our relationship and learning through
errors and mistakes and not through elitist, unnatural intellectual
formulas.  Tastelessness itself is a taste (with which we are not
familiar or the one that we don't like); not using any symbol itself
is a symbol.  In the same way, 'no comments' itself is a comment
(without words).  One need not use only words to 'command'. There
other ways to command and also to demand.   Those who exercise
authority (husband or wife) know how to command, even without words,
and those who depend know how to demand their rights.  Only those who
are yet to born can refrain from commenting, commanding and demanding.
The rest of the living beings, including the dead ones cannot escape
from commenting, commanding and demanding.

Finally, when someone, after asking me for help, says, 'Sorry for the
trouble,' I say with a smile, 'I need to give you trouble and you
need to give me trouble.  Otherwise we cannot live on this earth.  Of
course we can use a better word for 'trouble' though that is what we
give and need to give to each other as living beings.'

So 'comment, command and demand' to celebrate all relationships with
proper communication.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, September 1, 2009.

Moral Policing

Moral policing has become a regular ritual in India by the right wing
of certain religious groups. In the name of protecting and
safeguarding our culture and stopping the invasion of Western cultural
values and symbols, they introduce a new kind of violent culture in
our Indian worldview, which otherwise has always remained tolerant in
its spirit. No doubt every wrong needs to be opposed. But the way it
is done completely mars the very purpose of that cause. Not only what
to oppose is important but how to do is too.

'We are not opposing the celebration of love, but the
commercialization and vulgarization of it,' is the argument put forth
by those who oppose the different expressions of the so-called
Valentine's Day. Every tender feeling like love, care and compassion
is part of our human life. Whether we realize and express them in our
everyday activity or not, it is there in its spirit. But, we take
some special day and time to express in concrete form in life. So
what is wrong by doing it on certain day, though imported from the
West? Birthday, wedding anniversary, golden jubilee etc. are also
imported and very well integrated in our culture now.

If commercialization and vulgarity is the main concern for these right
wing people, better let them first pay attention to the
commercialization of religion in India. Just visit any famous temple
and see the commercial activity there. It is disgusting to see the
way pilgrims are exploited by the temple authorities and priests. As
they are in a hurry to have the darshan and go to the next place, they
become easy victims (by paying money) or are deprived of their right
(by missing the darshan).*

Regarding the vulgarity, this is the land of Kamasutra, Kajuraho and
Konark where sex is not only celebrated in art, but also displayed in
a graphic way. Those who see them as art are not disturbed by their
graphic expression. In the same way, if we too learn to see the
spirit behind the expression of love on such days like Valentine, then
we too will celebrate it with them.

This does not mean that I am supporting these kinds of 'days'.
Whether we agree or not, such things are going to come. But how to
handle such events depends not upon those who celebrate them, but who
oppose them. When discipline degenerates, then it becomes legalism,
which will antagonize people and force them to become rebels rather
than better people. Those who want to reform, should do it with the
same spirit as the culture they seek to preserve.

Dayanand

Matthigir, February 15, 2007

*Let me give one recent example. When one of my shishyas family came
from North India to visit some places in South, I accompanied them.
When I took them to Chidembaram, I explained few important things
about the temple and also pujas. Among them two are very important:
Ratna Sabapathi puja and seeing the 'Chidembara Rakasyam' (secret of
Chidembaram). When we reached the temple it was almost 10.00 am. As
usual they have to buy for special tickets to see 'Chidembara
rahasyam' and also to see the main deity in the sanctum sanctorum.
And they paid Rs. 50/- person and got the ticket. But I didn't go
with them. However, as the time was nearing for Spatikaling (Crystal
lingam) and Ratna Sabapathi puja, the main priest in the sanctum
sanctram just chased the people down. So they hardly could see the
main deity Nataraja and the Chidembaram Rahasyam was not shown to
them. As they don't know Tamil, they could not even ask about it to
the priest. I felt very sorry for them and told how
'commercialization' of religion and rituals, forces the temple
authorities only to think about the money and not the desire of the
devotees.

If the time for the other pujas was nearing, then they should have
stopped selling the special darshan tickets. The Deekshidar (priest)
who was issuing the ticket was also sitting on the very mandap in
which the sanctrum sanctum is located. He knows well that if he
issues the ticket that time, the devotees cannot see both the main
deity and Rahasyam. Yet he was least bothered about the devotees, and
his only aim is to sell more tickets to collect money. This family
from North is not going to come again to the South, spending money,
energy and time. But the religious brokers have no concern on such
matters; they are only after the money.

Ethnicity should not be encouraged

I am also happy that an Indian, that too a Tamilian (Dr. Venkatraman
Ramakrishnan) got the Nobel Prize for Chemistry this year.  But the
way both the media and the govternment suddenly began to claim and own
such person as a person of Indian origin or Tamil looks both
hypocritical and artificial.  According to Ravikumar, M.L.A.--who
wrote in Junior Vikatan, 'He is a Tamilian,' 14thOct. 2009, p. 13--Dr.
Ramakrishnan, left his birth place Chidembaram at the age of three
because of his father's work.  If I am correct, on the day the Nobel
Prize announced to Dr. Ramakrishnan, one Tamil T.V. channel even
interviewed the elementary school teacher at Chidembaram, where
Venkatraman studied?!?  How did a three year old child study in a
school back in early 1950s, where no pre K. G. or L.K.G. schools ever
existed?  I am not sure whether the T.V. report is wrong or
Ravikumar's information.  As the Television channels do all kinds of
things for the TRP (target rating point), we cannot trust them much.

Now coming to the claim of Venkatraman being a Tamilian or Indian,
there were genuine reasons for many such intellectuals to go away from
India and demonstrate their ability where they were given the
opportunity to work as a Scientist first and then as a human—least
minding about their ethnicity and nationality (or caste in our case).
But such intellectual drainage should bring more shame to us, while
instead, we suddenly begin to claim them as our own.

In fact, Dr. Radhakrishnan is an American.  The same way, when Kalpana
Chawla was killed in the Nasa space launch, she was glorified as a
pioneer Indian woman space scientist, whereas she was actually an
American citizen.  It is interesting to note that the Tamil Nadu
government even constituted one Bravery Award for women in Kalpana
Chawla's name.  Though I am not despising her tragic death, I cannot
still understand what kind of bravery there was in her death.  It was
a tragic accident, and according to some reports she died even before
her mind could recognize it.  But in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu
a 'bravery award' is constituted in her name to encourage any woman
who has done some real brave incident in real life.  Politicians can
use anything to earn some popularity.

In the recent past in the same way Mr. Mailswami Annadurai of ISRO
was recognized and glorified as a Tamil scientist when ISRO
successfully launched Chandrayan satellite.  It is true that they
deserve due recognition in their birth place, as it will inspire and
challenge many more youngsters to follow such research.

At the same time it should remind our government to think seriously
about such intellectual drainage from our land and encourage the
existing scientists working sincerely in India itself.  It is true
that the herb in our own garden never gets its value.  In the same
way, when we appreciate any individuals for their success as pioneers,
the spirit of regionalism or nationalism should not be highlighted too
much at the cost of certain facts which hit us back.

I am not blaming or questioning those who left India, but let us learn
to encourage and appreciate and even claim as our own those who stay
here and toil as Indians first and then as Scientists rather than
narrowing them down with regionalism.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, October 8, 2009

Debated Dialogue

Before sharing the dialogue, I need to explain why I gave the title to
this as 'Debated Dialogue.'  Dialogue is rightly called 'samvad' (sam
+ vad) where we come together (sam) to discuss (vad) a topic of common
interest.  In such a dialogue, each side remains humble enough to
acknowledge their own limitation and never tries to impose their own
view on others.  The main purpose of dialogue is to learn from each
other.

In a debate, however, we try to defeat the other through our skillful
talk and method of presentation.  This is also not wrong, but in both
Dialogue and Debate, what we all need is the patience to listen to
others' point of view before we give our view.  It will never serve
any purpose if we fail to listen to others and, instead, react quickly
without giving others opportunity to share their view.  This often
happens in life, and we can see this in many political debates on T.V.
 Anyhow, whatever might be life's lesson, we learn only from such
incidents.

During my recent visit to Delhi, I got an opportunity to have a
dialogue on 'avatara rahasya' (the secret of avatara).  It was not
actually a dialogue meeting, but a puja arranged by one of my
shishyas. However, considering the presence of people belonging to
two faiths (Christians and Hindus), after the puja I shared a bit
about the meaning behind every avatara.  First, I shared about the
meaning behind the avataras of Rama--Krishna and then about Jesus
Christ.  Though we started well in a cordial atmosphere of dialogue,
soon it became a heated discussion, leading to debate and ending in
argument.

To come to the point of the discussion—debate—argument, I have to
mention a bit of the message that I shared, so that what we discussed,
debated and finally argued will make some sense.

To begin with, I said that giving answers is very easy but asking the
right questions is a difficult task.  For this I quoted Arjuna's
(good) question in Gita which in one way helped us to get the answer
that we most need through Krishna.  But the most difficult part in
asking any question is that for which you already know the answer.
Most of the time in life, 'when the questions itself becomes the
answer' and then any kind of answer becomes unnecessary.  Out of
life's desperate situation, we ask some questions for which no answer
is coming.  This we find in the life of Jesus Christ, when He asked
the question, 'God why have you forsaken me?' He didn't get the
answer, because He already knew the answer.

'Dushta nigraha; sreshta paripalana' (destroying the evil one and
protecting the noble ones) is the meaning behind the avatara of Rama
and 'For the protection of the good and the destruction of the wicked
and for the establishment of dharma, I am born from age to age,'(Gita.
4:8) is the meaning behind the avatara of Krishna.  Whereas, though
the
orthodox view of Christ avatara is to 'save the sinner and destroy the
sin,' yet for me more than that, the avatara of Jesus portray the
self-emptying work of God to set an example for us to remove our'aham'
(ego).

As both Rama and Krishna remained true to the purpose of their
avatara, Jesus (or in Jesus, God) remained true to His avatara.  We
often keep ourselves at the centre of our life and view others from
our point of view.  For example a person always says, 'This is my
wife, my children, my home, my parents' (my policy, principle and
ideology) etc.  He will never say, 'I am her husband.' their parents
etc.  As we view life from our point of view (keeping our interest at
the centre) others also do the same ('my husband,' 'my parents,' etc.)
and hence we cannot avoid tension and friction in relationships.  The
best way to overcome any friction in relationship is to think from the
other's point of view, viz., 'I am her husband,' 'I am their parent'
etc'.  Then when we feel that others are not accepting our view, not
showing respect to us and even abusing us, the realization that once
we
belongs to them (viz. I am her husband; I am his wife etc.) when
others abuse us or go against our interest, they hurt themselves more
than us.  For example, when a husband abuses his wife, the wife begins
to realize that her husband is not abusing her, but he is abusing that
which belongs to him.  In the same way when a husband feels that his
wife is not showing or giving the respect that he deserves as a
husband (which he
has to earn rather than demand), he realizes that what his wife is
actually disrespecting is not him as an individual but her own
husband, which will hurt her more than him.  In this way throwing
ourselves at the disposal of others, instead of claiming or fighting
for our (legitimate) right will help us to overcome our aham and will
set others an example.

This is what we find in the avatara of Jesus.  This avatara violated
all the expectations of His nation and disciples.  They all were
expecting a 'deliverer' (Messiah) to give them freedom from the tyrant
Roman occupation and give back their own power and authority.  So when
He was doing miracles, healing the sick and feeding the hungry, they
all
thought that the long-expected Messiah had come.  But, contrary to
their expectation and even to their shock, He refuse to fight back,
telling them very clearly that His Kingdom does not belong to this
world.  He even refused to use His power against those who wanted to
get rid of Him and silently submitted Himself to them.  Here God set
an example for us to learn.  The sovereign God emptying Himself threw
Himself at the disposal of His own creation.  He was standing before
the earthly authorities as if telling, 'Here I am.  Do whatever you
want to do to me.  I am not going to deal with you as if you are my
creation.  But now I throw myself to you as your creator.'  And they
have done what every egoistic person would do.  Yes they crucified Him
on the Cross.  But as He emptied Himself of His Godhead, identifying
with His own creation, He could even say from the Cross, 'God forgive
them as they don't know what they are doing.'  Such a prayer is
possible only for a person who completely annihilated his/her ego.

Though Cross is traditionally considered as a symbol of suffering, yet
for me suffering is there in every form even before the death of
Christ on the Cross.  But what I found there is the self-emptying
process of God not only to save humanity but set an example for all of
us to get rid of our ego (aham).

So, the purpose of reading and learning about all these avataras is
for us to imitate them and not just worship them through some rituals.
 For example the main purpose of reading Ramayana is that we should
strive to become like Rama.  By merely worshipping and doing puja to
please Him to fulfill our earthly needs will never help anyone to
integrate the
teaching of Ramayana in personal life.  Upholding (personal) dharma is
the main teaching of Ramayana, and Rama set as example for it in his
relationship with everyone.  While most of the man expect their wives
to be like Sita, they themselves do not want to be like Rama.  Then
their wives too will be like Surpanaka (Ravana's sister), not  like
Mandodhari the wife of Ravana who is the enemy of Rama.  Only a Rama
can create a Sita, and that is the purpose of Ramayana.

Bhakti comes from the root 'bhaj' which means standing in personal
relationship.  It is not merely a concept, ideology but relationship.
So unless we too stand in personal relationship in our bhakti with our
God by developing relationship with Him by learning the values which
He wants to impart, then our bhakti will also become blind, and our
worship will end up as mere ritual.  Unfortunately, most of the time
we expect God to dance according to our tunes through rituals.  Then
such rituals become mere superstitions and bhakti--instead of
remaining a relationship--becomes a blind faith.

There I stopped, and after waiting all this time to question,
immediately one of the participants said, 'Even bhagavan Krishna
danced for a cup of porridge.'  Then another person, endorsing him
said, 'God even accepts our mere rituals and fulfills all our prayer
for mundane needs. Salvation is not possible for everyone, and He
allows majority of the
people to be trapped in this maya samsar: desiring, demanding and
praying only for earthly needs.  But God even accepts such kinds of
bhakti and rituals'.

For this I said, 'Yes.  God will not say "no" to our daily needs.
"Give us today our daily bread," Jesus taught His disciples.  He also
said, "Seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these
things shall be given to you."  So seeking and asking for our mundane
needs is not wrong.  But God never expects us to stop there alone.
With proper knowledge (jnana) of Him, He expects us to progress more.
'

As soon as I used the word 'Jnana' (knowledge) immediately
several--all at the same time--began to argue, 'Jnana is not important
in bhakti. Several bhaktas attained mukti only by their bhakti and
not because of their knowledge.  Taking the name of their God is more
than enough to have all kinds of jnana'.  Agreeing with this I quoted
Tulsidas who
said, 'While Rama was alive, He could hardly save a few individuals
like Sabari, Jatayu, Ahalya, Vibhishna (all are the characters in
Ramayana who attained mukti through Rama).  But when He went away, now
His Name saves millions and millions.  So who is greater "Rama" or His
"Nama" (name).  But merely repeating the name of God without knowing
His nature and purpose of His avatara, most of the time leads to blind faith.'

Again the first person started to say that God even accepts such blind
faith, and no jnana is important for bhakti.  For this I said, 'When I
used the word "jnana" you took it for chanting Sanskrit slokas,
quoting from Upanishads and other Sanskrit sources.  But jnana is not
this but to know and understanding the character and nature of God.
Bhakti without such a knowledge of God will become blind faith; and
(mere bookish) knowledge without proper bhakti (personal relationship
with God) will become arrogant.  Both bhakti and jnana are the two
sides of the same coin.  One cannot exist without other.'

Then many began to talk at the same time.  And some time after one
asked the question, before I give answer another person started to
argue.  So with a smile, I listened them and then said, 'I listened
when you talked.  Now would you please allow me to respond?'  Though
they said 'yes,' yet before I could complete my answer, again they
began to argue.  For example, in the context of bhakti is all
sufficient one person after quoting Sudhama (1) (Kuchelan in Tamil),
who even didn't ask his friend Krishna for help. His wife pestered
him to go and ask, but he said he "felt shy even to ask Krishna" who
was his bosom friend. So for him bhakti alone is important, and he
did not even use his bhakti and
friendship for his earthly needs.'  For this I said, 'Every story has
a central theme.  And if we began to stretch it beyond its limit, then
we will lose the main teaching and end up what they call in English as
"allegorization."  In Sudhama's story, the central theme is
that bhakti as true relationship is enough for God even to realize our
need without even asking.  Here in this story the central message is
Sudhama's true bhakti as a relationship.  But if we began to debate on
side issues like "He felt shy," "He didn't ask," etc., then we can go
on to stretch the illustration and debate over it.  Then you can prove
my points wrong, and I can prove your points wrong, and there won't be
an end to it.  For example, we can take the side issues like whether
he asked or not, when he left his home with an intention to ask, he
already had done it in his mind.'

Before I could complete this, the same person said, 'Sudhama came
under the pressure of his wife; that is why he even decided to go to
Dwaraka to seek Krishna's help.'  Again, responding to him I said,
'Now we are beginning to debate over side points. Why should a wise
person like Sudhama even come under the pressure of his wife?  If his
bhakti was that strong, he did not even need go to Dwaraka.  He could
have stayed back at his home and thought about Krishna, and the latter
also realizing the need of His bhakta could have fulfilled all his
needs.  But these are not the main points of this story.  And on every
small detail, if you want to argue, I am also ready for it.  We can
continue it for several days and there won't be an end.'

Then another person, who had kept quiet all this time asked, 'Swamiji,
do you accept that there are many ways for "mukti" (salvation)?'
Another person (who asked about Sudhama) quoting Gita said, 'para
dharmo bhayavaha' (the dharma of others is dangerous).  Thankfully he
didn't interpret it wrongly but rightly said that doing one's own
dharma viz. swadharma is good. I endorsed his view and quoted the
entire verse in its context.  Knowing that the dialogue had turned
into a discussion leading to a debate and ending in argument, I didn't
want to confront them anymore, as I was not feeling well.  So I said
'yes,' but continued, 'A thing which we bought to give some one will
become a "gift" only when it is accepted by him.  If he rejects it,
then it will remain merely a thing that we bought.  In the same way,
unless we too accept the mukti which God wants to give, He too cannot
do anything about it.'

This is not the first time for me to meet such people, and it won't be
the last one, but as usual I learned the principle that by turning a
dialogue into a debate, no one will be benefited.

Notes

1. Sudhama and Krishna studied together at Gurukulam.  They were very
close friends.  After their studies, Krishna went back to his kingdom
and became the king at Dwaraka and Sudhama married and got 26 children
and was suffering because of poverty.  Then his wife often told him to
go and ask his friend Krishna some help.  Though he hesitated, yet he
finally went taking a handful of puffed rice which his wife gleaned
from the harvested field.  Though he was cordially received by
Krishna, yet Sudhama didn't ask for help.  But, realizing his need,
Krishna--after taking the puffed rice and eating it--gave all kinds of
wealth to Sudhama's wife back at home. Without knowing this Sudhama
returned but found the blessing that Krishna had given him.

--

Don't follow but be a leader

'Don't be the tail but be a head; don't be the bogey to be dragged by an
engine, but be the engine; don't remain a follower; know you have the
potential to become a God' are the main thrust of Sri Suki Sivam's
talk today (November 21, 2009) in SUN TV. Of course we have to
understand and appreciate his rebuke with a real concern for those
followers who just imitate the gurus in their mannerism, attire etc.
Otherwise one can turn the table against him by saying, 'Then why should
we be a listener of any speaker and why not we ourselves be the
speaker? Without an audience to hear there cannot be a speaker.'

Though we have to agree with Sivam about his criticism against mere
imitation of some mannerism and attire of one's guru, yet we have to
understand the fact that all cannot be a guru or leader. In fact if
finding a true guru is difficult, it is equally more difficult to find
true followers. In most cases the truth which a guru found and shared
becomes known to the world only through his followers who
'imitate' his teaching in their life and not their mannerism. For
example, St. Paul says in the bible, 'Imitate me as I imitate Christ'.
And this he says with some authentic experience with authority. Because
when he said this he 'imitated' his guru, he meant of his suffering for
others and sacrifice that he made. Because, according to the Bible, Paul
never saw Jesus while He was alive. And so there is no hope for him to
imitate the mannerism and attire of Jesus.

Above all, even to become a leader and guru, one should first be humble
enough to be a follower to learn. Unless we are humble enough to learn
and follow first—either a person or principle--we can never become a
guru and leader. No one is a born leader. Some might have that potential
in them by birth, but they too need some one to find and shape it. Even
those few rare exception like Buddha or Ramana Maharishi whom we claim
found the reality on their own were all shaped by the long standing
tradition and scripture which enabled them to search for it.

So, yes it is good to be a leader rather than a follower. But the process for
that should begin as a follower—not the mannerism and attire of the
guru, but their personality, teaching and principle.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, November 21, 2009.