Scale and Grandeur Increase Faith..

Image courtesy: aaadelhi.org

Man will forever be fascinated by the world around him, and mystified by what lies beyond.

Whatever the extent of scientific accomplishment and discovery in astronomy and related sciences, I believe the night sky will remain a mystery till the end of humanity. The belief in some that somehow the origins of the universe can be discovered using better telescopes and inference techniques only amazes me. The more one learns about what lies beyond, the more one ought to realize that there will never be any significant body of knowledge on the origins of the universe, however much we progress. Science, at least astronomy, shall remain a string (no pun intended) of hypotheses and theories, perhaps each one better that the previous at explaining observed phenomena. 

Still, my purpose is not to belittle those that dedicate their careers to extending our body of knowledge. It is important to continually explore and enlighten the rest of humanity. However, it is more important for man to realize his limitations and see the many things that point at the divine as the cause of the universe. If nothing else, the Mahabharata drives home this one point over and over again. Amid a galaxy of mighty and (many divine) warriors capable of conquering heaven and earth, Krishna gently shows not once, but at least twice in the vishwaroopa form, that He pervades all, that nothing moves without His grace, and that He transcends time and space.

We are awed by scale and grandeur of things like the night sky, the deep oceans, volcanoes, mighty animals, the mountains, the instincts in a mother, the wonders of the human body, and by the tininess of the microscopic world. How many of us has not felt the presence of something beyond man when admiring such grandeur?

Still, I believe that comprehending what might be the cause of all this scale and grandeur, requires a leaving behind of the endless investigation of the material world. Of the 564 Brahma Sutras, the first reads ' Om athaato brahma jignaasa Om'. Lengthy treatises have been written on the meaning of this and the other sutras, but one of the simpler meanings is that the most important jignaasa (investigation/study) one might do is on Brahman, the supreme being. This implies a study of the qualities of Brahman, not a fixation on His material creations (which are grand, no doubt) and the trivialities that abound for the lesser mortal to be fixated on. A man that does brahma jignaasa is of the highest order, and naturally one that focuses on the material is of lower order.

Kunti, in a request to Krishna during the Mahabharata, asks Him to keep her in sorrow. For, she tells him, that is the only time man tends to think about God. Sorrow might evoke anger in some, leading one to question the existence of God, but in the one doing brahma jignaasa, it provides experiences that takes them closer to comprehending the supreme being.

Sites from the epics in Pakistan..

Hinglaj Mata, Hingol, Balochistan, Pakistan
Image courtesy: Wikipedia

Today, an article showed up in my news feed, tagged with Pakistan Hindu League.

The article was about the Hinglaj Mata (Durga) temple in Hingol, Balochistan, Pakistan. I already knew about this temple, but the article interestingly started by mentioning that this place was also the home of Shabari, a character that Rama meets when He and Lakshma first go north in search of the kidnapped Sita.

Long story short, Shabari, an ascetic woman is told by her ashram guru that Rama will visit and bless her, and she waits all her life until the day Rama and Lakshmana visit her. Her goal of receiving the Lord's blessing completed, she also suggests they go south to seek Sugreeva's help for searching Sita.

It was interesting to learn that Shabari's ashrama was in Hingol. For one, when after Ravana is defeated, someone suggests to Rama that because Lanka was so beautiful they should stay back there, Rama replies saying that however beautiful a foreign land, it is one's homeland that one must go back to. Puranic geography puts the boundary of India as the Sindhu (Indus) river and its tributaries on the northwest, the Himalayas on the north, the Brahmaputra river and its tributaries on the east, and the oceans on the south. So, perhaps we should not draw the boundary of India in the middle of Punjab, but extend beyond even to Balochistan. Maybe there was an Indus tributary there before that has dried up since. Or simpler yet, maybe it didn't matter whether was inside India or outside at that time.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

On the topic of Puranic accounts of the border of India, legend has it that two cities - presentday Lahore and Kasur in Pakistan, were built in honour of Rama and Sita's sons Lava and Kusha. There is even a temple for Lava in Lahore fort.

Interestingly, the two districts - Lahore and Kasur, are neighbouring districts (numbered 17 and 14 on the district map of Punjab, Pakistan) and both border India.

From the Mahabharata, there's also the Katasraj temples (Chakwal district, Punjab, Pakistan) near which the Pandavas are believed to have spent several of their 14 years during the vanavasa. 

Why Bhima is the real hero of the Mahabharata - part 2

"Chhota Bheem"
Image courtesy: birthdaybless.com

Recently, I heard more than one kid that I ran into singing the "chhota bheem.. chhota bheem" title song from a cartoon of the same name on the Pogo channel in India. The show is not related to this post, but it was amusing to see its popularity with the kids of this generation.

I read an interesting article here about Bhima and wanted to paraphrase some of it here.

Verse 1-10 of the Bhagavad Gita describes Bhima as the strongest of all warriors on either side of the Mahabharata war. Mind you, this is the Lord's own words.

"aparyaaptam tadasmaakam balam bhiishmaabhirakshitam;
paryaaptam tvidam eteshhaam balam bhiimaabhirakshitam"

Here's a list of his accomplishments which completes shadows everybody else's:

1. Bhima kills each and every one of the 100 kauravas, none excluded. 
• In fact, before killing Dusshashasana on the battlefield, Bhima calls out to the rest of the Kaurava army to see if anybody wanted to stop him from proceeding. Warriors including Karna stay silent, perhaps due to fear of Bhima in general, and awareness of Bhima's pledge during Draupadi's humiliation of personally killing and drinking Dusshashana's blood.  
• When Bhima indeed rips Dusshashana open and drinks his blood Karna is described in the Mahabharata as swooning at the sight, and the rest of the Kaurava army scattering in fright.
2. When discussing whether to fight a war or not (after Duryodhana refuses even 5 villages to the Pandavas), Krishna tells the Pandavas and Bhima that Bhima was the one on whom most of the burden of the war would fall to. Arjuna and the rest were only nice-to-have warriors in the war. 
3. Bhima kills every other major villain in the course of events leading up to the Mahabharata, being used as Krishna's hero of choice - to rid the world of Jarasandha, for example. Jarasandha, in fact, mocks Arjuna (the other available fighter) as being an insult if he were chosen to fight him. He declares Bhima as the only warrior fit to fight him. Not muchkingd credence should be given to Jarasandha's words, of course. For, he also declares Krishna a coward. (Krishna moves his entire kingdom from Mathura to Dwaraka to avoid unnecessary bloodshed with the frequent battles with Jarasandha.) 
4. During Draupadi's humiliation in the Kaurava court, Bhima's patience is not to be mistaken for being merely obedience to his elder brother, Yudhishtira. His confidence in Krishna saving her from complete humiliation is all that we can infer. Bhima is also the only one that vows to rout the entire Kaurava clan, including his pledge for Dusshasana in particular.
5. On Arjuna being the person who strung the bow and won the Draupadi swayamvara, this article describes the story of the events leading up to the swayamvara. Veda Vyasa visits the Pandavas prior to the swayamvara and tells them that they were all going to marry Draupadi. So, Arjuna is chosen consciously to be the one that contests on their behalf. The article goes into why Bhima was not chosen to be the suitor at the swayamvara, with an interesting connection to Shikhandi and a curse on the garland that Draupadi was going to use for the winner of the swayamvara. In short, the wearer of the "Amba-Shikhandi-Draupadi" garland was destined to kill Bhishma, which Bhima was not going to do, as Bhishma was a Vishnu bhakta. 
• I'm not entirely sure I agree with the article's argument. Krishna advises Arjuna to kill everyone on the enemy side since they represented evil. If that applied to Arjuna, it must apply to Bhima as well, Vishnu bhakta or not. There were several not-fully-evil players on the Kaurava side, including Drona, for example. Still, an interesting thought, and perhaps there's more to the reasoning due to Bhima 's (Vayu's) standing in the Dwaita school of thought.

When looking at the events in the Mahabharata in greater detail, every key accomplishment of the Pandavas comes down to Bhima, no doubt the real hero of the Mahabharata.

Deepavali is really dedicated to Mahalakshmi...

Narakasura Vadha
Image courtesy: Wikipedia

While the Mahabharata gets most attention due to the events and politics leading up to the Pandava-Kaurava war, episodes involving Krishna, their impact and scale establish His role as the undoubted protagonist despite several claimants.

The 3-day Deepavali festival begins with Naraka Chaturdashi, the middle day being the most important day, and the last day being Bali Padyami. The significance accorded to these days have wide variation, but here are the common ones.

It is interesting to note that of the 3 Deepavali days, the most important is actually dedicated to Mahalakshmi.

• Naraka Chaturdashi is the day Narakasura (son of Hiranyaksha - Varaha avatara) was killed by Krishana. For the Narakasura Vadha, Satyabhama (an avatara of Lakshmi) accompanies Krishna and stays with him throughout the war. It was a war, for entire armies of Narakasura are vanquished by Krishna, and finally felled by his chakra.

• Bali Padyami is the day that Vishnu as Vaamana ends the asura king Bali's reign. This is probably the most peaceful episode you can find of an 'evil' king being vanquished. Bali offers Vaamana (in brahmin form) anything he might desire. He ends up committing three measures of land, measured by the tiny Vaamana's feet. After Vaamana grows and grows to cover earth and the skies, Bali keeps his commitment by offering his own head as the third measure. Vaamana blesses Bali, the grandson of Prahlada, but puts his reign to and end by pushing him to the nether world. It is important to note that while Bali himself was pious (though an asura), it was his fellow asuras that were out of control, which brings Bali his fate. A lesson to be learned here about turning a blind eye to wrong deeds.

These two major events, flanking the main Deepavali day, commemorate the elimination of two key villains that even Indra and the devas are unable to defend against. In both cases, boons granted to the two villains allow their day of exit to be celebrated.

Now to what I think is the main significant of Deepavali. 

Rukmani and Sathyabama, both contemporary avatars of Lakshmi, form actors in an episode that we can learn from. The episode is described well in this Wikipedia article (see Tulabharam section). In this episode catalyzed by Narada (he tries to kindle a rivalry between Sathyabama and Rukmani for Krishna's attention), Sathyabama depicts wealth (focusing on gold to match Krishna's weight in a tulabharam) whereas Rukmani finally matches Krishna's 'weight' by using a non-material-focused devoted offering of a tulasi leaf. 

I don't believe that Sathyabama was some material-focused princess who somehow ended up marrying Krishna. For, if Krishna is omnipotent, any of His consorts, in whatever yuga or avatara, can only be avataras of His eternal consort, Mahalakshmi. I strongly believe Lakshmi shows, through the Tulabharama episode, that the material-focused Sathyabama is not dearer to the Supreme being. It is the non-material focused, but devoted Rukmani.

This leads us to why Mahalakshmi might be the focus of Deepavali. It might be okay to treat Her as the goddess of wealth, which is not incorrect. However, the key reason to celebrate Mahalakshmi's role is for her lesson that devotion to God is more important than the pursuit of wealth. 

After the Mahapralaya, when creation has ceased, and everything is made dormant, Mahalakshmi is believed to plead with the Lord to wake from his yoganidra and restart creation for the benefit of the souls that may be awaiting their turn for saadhana and salvation. Because it is due to Her grace that souls, good and bad, get put into creation by the Supreme being, She is the mother of all. And that is why celebrating Her motherhood in this vein is the main significance of Deepavali. 

Dreams and Reality..

What do you make of your dreams?

Several people try to interpret their dreams, that is, if they can remember their dreams.

Throughout a lifetime, there are perhaps a handful of dreams that people remember for a long time. A dream might have been extremely dreadful, pleasurable, memorable for the actors in the dream, etc.

But, do you ever think of dreams as carrying any value beyond just your own subconscious imagination playing out in some random order?

Here are some observations on the characteristics of dreams (before I get into arguments on whether dreams might correlate to reality):

1. Dreams seem not to follow earth time
• How often have you gone to sleep and woken up after 8 hours, wondering how that short sequence that played out in your dream had lasted so long?
2. Actors in dreams
• Several of my dreams have involved actors from my own life. Friends, family members, etc. Sometimes actors have the appearance of a friend or family member but may play an entirely different 'character'.
3. Real experiences
• A friend once described how he dreamed of coconut chutney and how when he woke up he still had the taste in his mouth. Clearly, while the dream may have been all virtual, the experience was as real for him as eating a spoonful of coconut chutney. 
4. Nightmares
• A lot of us remember dreams because they had a scary sequence. We feel real fear, sometimes sweat and shriek for real, and ultimately wake up to relief.
5. No rules or logic
• If you try to piece together your dream, based on what you remember of it, you may only remember bits and pieces. Sometimes, we remember nothing (which perhaps indicates deep sleep, which is good!). Most of my dreams make so sense. Either the location, or the people, the dresses, the situation - so many things about my dreams make no sense.

The Dwaita Vedic school of thought lays out dreams as being one of the tools that Brahman (God) uses to give souls different kinds of experiences. Real-life experience, ones that we experience in our waking state, are what they are. However, our dreams many a time surpass our worst waking state experience.

If you believe in God, Brahman's use of dream as a tool becomes easy to appreciate. If God can put non-earth space and time into play for an individual's dream, then He does not have to apply rules and logic the way He does for the real world we inhabit. A range of experiences can be administered to the soul, hastening its journey through the cycle of birth and death. Belief in a compassionate God may also help one see dreams as being easier punishments to one's sins.

Whatever you make of schools of thought such as these, and your level of theistic fervour, that dreams provide us real experiences is undeniable. That dreams are entirely due to one's imagination is difficult for me to believe.

By the way, we've not discussed our own actions in our dreams - whether we are accountable for them or not in some way (perhaps in the court of Yama?), etc. We've also not included day dreaming our discussion here, for obvious reasons, since they occur in more or less a waking state.

There is a somewhat tangential example from a Purana (I don't remember which, but I remember this from researching the topic of Kali) where a lady is tricked into believing that an impostor was her husband, and they proceed to make love. The child thus born is considered to be the true husband's son, according to the Purana, since the wife was imaging that it was her husband with her, not the impostor. Make what you want of this account, but 'dreaming' or 'imagination/attribution' in this particular case indeed equates dream with reality. 

Creation doesn't necessarily have to conflict with evolution

Image courtesy: smithsonianmag.com

I see endless debates between creationists and evolutionists, and have always felt that there doesn't necessarily have to be a debate.

Usually it's a Christian church vs atheist debate, where the atheist pooh-poos the Christian theory of God creating the world over a few days, due in part to the existence of fossils that suggest evolution over millions of years.

Hindu traditions have theistic theories of creation that do not necessarily go headlong against evolution. The 4 yugas, starting with the pristine Satya yuga, play out endlessly in a cycle of creation and destruction over a period of millions of years.

Vishnu, on Lakshmi's urging, creates the universe, and in it the planets and stars, from primordial matter (jada) and puts some of the endless numbers of souls (jeevas) into a cycle of birth and death, starting with Brahma, who is delegated this task. Several puranas describe different aspects of how the universe ('bhoogola', 'brahmaanda') and the elements, and so on, are created. The souls themselves are said to progress from lower forms of life, such as microbes, and on to higher forms of life, such as mammals and ultimately human. The souls, of course, all are said to be given 'equal opportunity', a fixed number of (something in the lakhs) births through which they do 'saadhana' (a process of self-realization) and progress on to their rightful destination.

The puranas and the Ramayana and Mahabharata describe men of different heights and gaits that we see today, ape-men ('vaanaras in the Ramayana'), fruits and vegetables, and other food items such as rice and mustard of different sizes, indicating that there has been evolution through the yugas.

None of what the puranas and other epics in the Hindu tradition describe need fit exactly well with our current geological evidence and scientific understanding, for we learn something new every day. Our interpretations of the puranas and epics may also not be accurate, due to missing portions or the lack of tools necessary to unambiguously interpret ancient (even somewhat recent) works. And, of course, the 18 puranas have conflicting accounts of the same events, making reconciliation difficult.

Still, that an omnipotent God could not 'create' by setting off an evolutionary process, is a major weakness in the Christian theory of evolution, which has allowed the prolonging of the creation vs evolution debate, and made the atheist position stronger by default. 

Does (should) God have a gender?

Courtesy: godofindia.blogspot.com

Does God have a gender, or should He?

Of the many takeaways from our epics, one is that of Vishnu (or his avataras such as Rama or Krishna) being the male protagonist and Lakshmi (or her avataras such as Sita or Rukmini) being the subordinate female protagonist. Of the lesser divine beings in the epics, couples abound, with the female usually being the subordinate consort.

So, it is clear why in Indian society (and families) the female, while not slighted (at least in theory), is still somewhat lesser in stature to the female; the male being at least the first among equals. 

A better way to think about the role of gender is through the prism of division of labour. Yet another   prism is that of the needs of society and its future generations. The father provides protection to the family and procures resources, the mother make decisions on allocation of resources, feeds and raises the children. The mother and father also usually play good cop-bad cop with the children to provide them the right stimulus, usually gender-sensitive as well. The daughter is taught certain things, the son others. 

Beyond the family, it is clusters of males that usually conduct public life, governance, and more. Still, beyond societal imperfections, if any, in theory or practice, past or present, does God have a gender? Why do we refer to God as He/Him?

My theory is that God chose to create society, natural order, reproduction, the whole nine yards (in conformance with the Vedas, of course) in a form where the male dominates (or can dominate) public life and the female dominates the home; and it is for this reason and His incarnations are as male, and that of his consort are as a female. 

Still, God provides us several examples where his incarnations are not male, why, not even human, in some cases. The first few incarnations in the dashaavataras (an evolution of sorts) are Matsya (fish form), Koorma (turtle form), Varaha (boar form), Narasmiha (male+lion form). The Vedas and Upanishads describe God (Brahman/incarnations such as Rama, Krishna etc.) not in physical terms but variously as 'satyam-gnanam-anantham', 'gunabhrun-nirguno-mahaan', etc. meaning that He is essentially composed of boundless non-material characteristics such as knowledge, happiness, compassion, etc., in infinite quantity and in blemishless fashion. i.e., He is not just a 'great guy' but completely independent of any other being or thing. Of His boundless qualities, Lakshmi is described as being in a perpetual state of discovery. 

Therefore, if God had a gender associated with Him (being male/female) there would be something material about him, and the physical limitations and needs that come with being male/female. All the boundless qualities described cannot, therefore, be ascribed to a 'mere' male. Further, in all the avataras where God is described as being born, e.g., as Rama or Krishna, the epics also describe a birth without any garbhavaasa ('immaculate conception'). For, if garbhavaasa was involved, that would be a material occurence, not something the God that we've defined can undergo. 

I'm unsure whether we should classify His consort as female (yes, perhaps), but still that he provides Himself to her in male form could not be for His own sake, but her's, given the independence from everything that is ascribed to Him as a quality.

In reference to God, it is always 'sriman' not 'srimaan', the latter being a reference to a male, while the former, not. Still, for common purposes, it is good to focus on a male God, while diving into the philosophical (Brahman) requires us to stop ascribing any gender to Him to get anywhere meaningful. 

The Mohini avatara is an interesting case of Vishnu incarnating in female form during the 'samudra manthana' (churning of the ocean for divine nectar) where Mohini 'outwits' the ashuras and distributes all the nectar to the devas. During the Mahabharata (Dwapara yuga), Vishnu's incarnations all appear to be aimed at doing whatever it takes (usually in sly fashion) to outwit evil. Krishna avatara proves this over and over, and Mohini avatara proves this too. In addition, it is for us to not ascribe a gender to God, and to not treat Mohini as a case of perversion involving God. 

Emulate whom - Rama or Krishna?

A short post on the eve of Krishna JanmAshtami.

Of the two iconic characters of India, both incarnations of the Lord, which one should we try to emulate?

In answering this question, it is important to consider the context - the yugas during which the Lord incarnated.

During the Rama avatara, the Krita Yuga was still largely dhaarmic. Rama explicitly did the right things (we, even today, have no doubt that his actions we the right things to do), except perhaps the episodes of seemingly doubting Sita and of eliminating Vaali from a hidden perch. So, it is easy for Indian parents to push their son to be like Rama, devoted to his father and mother, to his kingdom and his people, to dharma, etc (and daughters to be like Sita, too!).

On the other hand, during the Krishna avatara, the Dwapara Yuga was still mostly dhaarmic but there were injustices against individuals and the people, the rule of tyrants and the like. In this context, Krishna's actions reflect the need to act street smart for the cause of the people and of upholding dharma. There are several episodes where Krishna finds loopholes to outwit the tyrants, especially during the 18-day Mahabharata war.

Given that Kali Yuga is worse off than Dwapara in dharma, Krishna should be the right model for us to emulate. Emulate Rama, whenever possible, of course!

Why rebirth must be true

The Phoenix bird - courtesy Wikipedia

I had part of this conversation with a friend recently, and thought I should share with others.

The topic of our discussion was rebirth (somehow a lunch conversation veered to this, don't ask me why). 

Some religions support rebirth (Hindu religions) and some do not (christianity, except for Jesus Christ?). My argument for why rebirth must be true, though, is not based on religion or theology, but on the more fundamental principle of natural justice. Whether you believe in a God or not does not matter for our purpose here.

So, here's what I consider is the principle of natural justice:  it is a natural order that pervades our world and everything in it. One that ensures that 'justice' is served 'somehow' and one that at least all humans (except the cynical) believe in. Work hard and one shall get rewarded, commit a crime and while you may get away with it for sometime but will eventually pay somehow, etc. are common beliefs we all hold irrespective of our religious beliefs.

Once we accept the 'principle of natural justice', the argument is fairly straightforward. 

Our life experiences show us a lot of extreme examples, and some not so extreme, of things just not adding up. How many of us have seen people that do not work hard at all getting lucky all the time; criminals living a good life; hard working, honest people suffering and being unlucky all the time; and on and on? The principle of natural justice just doesn't seem to hold in so many examples from our life experiences. We may take solace in believing that a criminal may not be able to sleep peacefully despite all riches, etc., but... we all have worries, and this cannot be a good explanation! At the end of the day we do end up saying 'life is unfair', precisely because the principle of natural justice doesn't seem to hold. That is because we tend to close out a person's 'book' at the end of his life (and start accounting for his/her deeds 'at their birth'; and why should we?

If we allow for rebirth in our belief system, the principle of natural justice will 'balance', somehow. We may not see it happen for an individual across a cycle of births and rebirths, but our belief in a principle of natural justice is not stretched unduly by adding rebirth to the equation. So there..

Additionally, rebirth brings with it a lot of explanations for many other 'injustices' we may observe. All of us wonder why one person may be born into a rich family, while another may be born into a poor family or troubled country. There just can't be an explanation for this without beginning to account for an individual's deeds ab initio, at the start of the cycle (wherever that was). Starting to account for deeds at 'this birth' just gets us nowhere. So there, again..

Why it's difficult to trace root cause - the Dharma conundrum today

Sivaji Ganesan presenting his case in court;
 Parasakti - courtesy gokul-r.blogspot.com

'Root Cause' is a phrase you hear a lot in international relations these days, especially as it relates to terrorism. Essentially, a terrorist can blame the victim (of some unjust thing in the past) for his aggression, and in most causes there is a cycle or chain of events (each worthy of blames and counter blames) that leads up to the act(s) in the present day.

I have been thinking a lot lately about how one might deal with root case analysis, and where one might draw the line in determining what might be right or wrong. And.. most importantly, what is rightful revenge?

In yugas past (krita, treta and dwapara) the responsibility of dharma was vested in units larger than the self. For example, in the dwapara yuga, the family was the unit that was collectively responsible for upholding Dharma. So, if Duryodhana did a wrong, Bhishma should not have stood silent. If a kshatriya decides to stop participating in protecting his people (and perhaps - in today's scenario - succumbed to a lobbyist to award a defence contract to a substandard vendor) his family would do good to force him to mend his ways.

Now to the present day.

As a solid example of root cause analysis from recent times, the Post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2003. Hindu Kar Sevaks were burned alive in an entire rail bogey. The Muslims (per prevailing understanding of the case) that committed this act of terrorism blamed the Babri demolition by 'Hindus'. It wasn't the same Hindus, but belonging to the same community was sufficient justification for this group to indulge in the act. The Babri demolition itself was more or less a desperate last resort after decades (and perhaps centuries) of frustration in the Hindu communities. Babar may have demolished the Ram temple in Ayodhya, but the Muslims of today are not in any way related to him, surely? Should the Muslims though disown the mosque as not rightfully having belonged to them, acknowledging the demolition of the temple in the 1600s?

As we can see, many questions can be raised regarding entire communities' responsibilities, without having any clear answer in the end.      

1. Rich and poor alike evade taxes. Whatever the tax code, someone is bound to be unhappy. Either the evader is being fraudulent, or is stretching the spirit of the law and the tax code to his benefit (example, Apple setting up a Nevada office). Here, the evader is going to rationalize their behaviour by accounting for their 'other' contributions to society, job creation perhaps. In this case, the evader's complaint may be that there is no other benefit to job creation, just whatever profits he is able to make. Society (the government or the people collectively) is unable to meet all the needs of the individual at a sufficient level of granularity (even in something like the tax code) thereby guaranteeing legal noncompliance. How does one determine what the 'right' level of tax is, anyway?
2. In the kali yuga, families continue to exist more or less as the institution they once were. However, the son or daughter does their own thing even if the parents object, not something one would be able to do in an earlier yuga (and still have a clear heart, because one is really breaking Dharma). That the mata and pita are to be respected comes with its caveats (arbitrarily assigned by the son or daughter) today. For example, if the father owed money to someone, not every son is going to feel the responsibility to repay. I bet that a good majority would want to shrug responsibility, citing one or more reasons that may actually seem reasonable. "My father has no assets, so no inheritance, no loan repayment" is an argument one can definitely make, and probably win in court as well. 
3. How about pre-marital physical contact? The Dharma for a man (or boy) is to not lust after any woman who isn't his wedded wife. Similarly, the Dharma for the girl is to gain approval from her parents and be wedded to the man first (as her first husband of course; Elizabeth Taylor and her 4 marriages aren't a great example of Dharma compliance here). "She was willing"/"I didn't make the first move", etc. are perfectly acceptable today (read the story of Ahilya and Indra on another post for reference and the repercussions both face for adultery). What relaxation, per our needs, of Dharma, leads to is a twisting of the first principles of Dharma and its institutions (marriage, family, etc) that make it difficult to track right and wrong.

Parikshit and the advent of Kali Yuga

Image courtey: Wikipedia. Raja Ravi Varma. 

It is during King Parikshit's reign that Dwapara Yuga ends and Kali Yuga starts.

Several Puranas talk about Kali (not to be confused with KaaLi), but I believe that the Bhagavata Purana provides the most accurate account of Kali and his advent. (Why not all of the 18 Puranas are to be considered accurate is a topic for a different day).

A few years after the Mahabharata war, Krishna and the Pandavas depart the earth. Parikshit, the only surviving prince of the Kuru lineage (son of Abhimanyu and Uttara) becomes the king of Bharatavarsha.

Parikshit encounters Kali beating a cow and bull (the cow representing the earth and the bull representing Dharma). Curiously the bull stands on one leg, Dharma being on its last leg in the Kali Yuga). Parikshit first aims his sword at Kali to finish him off, but lets him stay on in a handful of locations (on earth?): where there is gambling, alcohol consumption, animal slaughter, prostitution, and finally gold.

And of course, after Parikshit departs, Kali (as was destined) spreads to other places, but I'd think that these five locations would be of special interest to Kali.

Vedic schools of thought talk of Kali and his influence going beyond mere 'locations'. What really is impactful is Kali's ability to influence human thought, and draw the individual towards Adharmic activities. Kali's influence essentially pervades all that is based on the five essential material elements (pancha bhoota). The Dwaita school of thought holds that Kali's influence does not reach (in addition to Vishnu and Lakshmi) Brahma and Vayu, and their consorts Saraswati and Bharati. Gods that are further down the ladder (taaratamya) do get influenced.

Now, who is Kali, and what is his agenda? My answer to this question starts at the basics, with the classification of souls according to their innate nature. Souls are classified as (predominantly) sathva, rajas, and thamas. Most are familiar with what these stand for. Still, I'd like to call out rajas (also called nitya samsaari in some vedantic treatise) as being the class of souls that are not evil, but those that do not recognize Vishnu (Brahman) as the supreme being that runs the show. Thamas is the class of souls that actively refuses to recognize Vishnu and indulges in activities that disrupt the saadhana (path towards liberation) of the Saatvic souls. Kali (who also incarnates as Duryodhana in the Mahabharata) is considered the foremost of the Thamasic souls, and hence his move to influence other souls (and derail them in their saadhana) as much as possible.

The Kali Yuga is estimated to run about 432,000 man years, starting about 5000-6000 years ago. When no Dharma is left on earth, the Puranas foretell great misery (periods of subsequent drought, scorching heat, incessant rain, etc.) and the incarnation of Kalki who destroys the world and kicks off pralaya for the birth of a new world.

This page contains a good description of what Kali Yuga is expected to bring (progressively). Reads like a doomsday prediction, but I'm sure many see it coming.

The bad news is that even after just 5000-odd years of Kali Yuga (and 400,000+ more years to go) cultural relativism has set it deeply amongst us. A simple answer of 'no' to something clearly evil like abortion, for example, is difficult for many to accept, and debated endlessly as if there is no simple answer based on Dharma. 

The "Good or Bad" series: Ashwatthama

Image: netra-creative-vision.blogspot.com

Ashwatthama should be an easy call. The son of Dronacharya, Ashwatthama develops enmity towards the Pandavas and loyalty to Duryodhana (not unlike Karna) and commits several wrongs that seem to me to be unparalleled in the Mahabharata.

Ashwatthama is considered a partial avatara (amsha) of Shiva..

When Ashwatthama is still a child, Dronacharya is insulted by King Drupada (father of Draupadi) when he goes to ask for a cow to feed milk to his son. It is only after this incident that Kripacharya offers him a position as a teacher to the Pandavas and Kauravas. There perhaps was some anger in Ashwatthama towards Drupada (and hence Draupadi) due to this slight.

Ashwatthama's real enmity towards the Pandavas starts when they kill Dronacharya on the battlefield due to a 'lie' by Yudhishtira. When Drona is told by many that Ashwatthama is dead (not entirely untrue, because an elephant by the same name had died), he refuses to believe anybody but Yudhishtira. Yudhishtira confirms the death of the elephant, but Krishna blows his conch to blot out Yudhisthira's reference to the elephant. Drona, on hearing this, drops his weapons, and sits down in meditation on the battlefield. Seizing the opportunity, the Pandavas (Arjuna?) finish him off. Surely this must have angered Ashwatthama enough to commit all the atrocities he eventually does at the end of the war.

As a side note, it is interesting that there are several warriors in the Mahabharata that are considered unbeatable at one point or another. Bhishma is the first, whom even Parashurama is unable to beat (the Amba story), and he is only taken out when Shikhandhi is used to make him drop his weapons. The second is Arjuna, although his case is slightly weak, given that he is protected against Karna once or twice. Drona is deemed unbeatable in the Mahabharata war (although he is beaten by Arjuna in the Virata parva battle), and hence the Pandavas resort to trickery to take him out. Bhimasena is of course invincible and he routs most of the key bad characters in the entire Mahabharata.

Towards the end of the war, Ashwatthama resorts to killing several warriors in the Pandava camp including the sons of the Draupadi/Pandavas (mistakenly assuming that they were the Pandavas themselves) in stealth at night, not becoming of even a lowly soldier let alone a top warrior in an army.  

Ashwatthama also directs his brahmAstra at the womb of Uttara (daughter of king Virata, wife of Abhimanyu) to finish off the as-yet unborn Parikshit, since he would be the last of the Kuru clan. Krishna uses his chakra to protect the child and mother, but only ends up reviving the child after a still-birth.

Lastly, Duryodhana, in his death bed, requests Ashwatthama to have a child with his wife Banumati, so that that child can be the ruler of Hastinapura. While Ashwatthama does not actually oblige, he neither accepts not refuses to Duryodhana, not a good quality for someone who should immediately know the right Dharma.

On the last item, Vyasa himself sires Pandu and Dhritarashtra (with Ambika and Ambalika) to keep the Kuru clan alive. Is that considered Dharma because he is a rishi and God Himself? Or is it because Vyasa is a son of Satyavati (the fisherman's daughter who is married to Shantanu) and he is obeying his mother's command and acting on behalf of his now-dead younger brother Vichitravirya? In this case, the continuation of the clan is for the good of humanity, perhaps, while not so in the case of Duryodhana? 

To hell with relativism - a look at the Ramayana

Image courtesy: realchristianity.wordpress.com, cartoonstock.com

I have come to believe that relativism - moral or cultural - is dangerous. There are several reasons why I believe that.

In case you are not familiar with the terms moral relativism and cultural relativism, here are simple definitions in my own words:

Moral relativism holds that morals (standards) are relative and what one may hold as the right thing to do in a certain land is not necessarily the right thing to do in another. For example, the idea that if it is immoral for most of humanity to kill one another, a cannibalistic society can still do what it pleases.

Cultural relativism is similar. For example, the idea that while I may consider equal rights to men and women as sacred, I would tolerate cultures that do not hold the same standard. 

  

Today's attitudes in the liberal, democratic world are largely culturally relativistic (though may be not morally relativistic). Let's look at the Ramayana in the lens of cultural and moral relativism and see where that might lead us. 

I was talking with a friend about Rama a few years back. The conversation quickly came around to how he thought Rama was an aggressor because of the Ashwamedha Yagna. Contrast Rama's 'aggression' with, for example, Ashoka, who 'renounced' violence and became a peace loving king. This is an argument of a moral relativist. Peace is definitely the ideal to strive for, but for the kshatriya (the ruler, the politician, etc.), the duty is to protect his people. However, the duty of the kshatriya is also to protect people beyond his borders. Afterall, Indian culture talks of the principle of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam, that the entire world and its people is one family. So, while the Ashwamedha Yagna involved the king's (Rama) army going from kingdom to kingdom asking its ruler to accept the leadership of Rama, that ruler was still autonomous. The leadership of Rama meant that Rama Rajya would come to that kingdom as well, and Rama Rajya would not strip the ruler of his individuality, merely ensure that tresspasses from the right path, if any, would be prevented.

Here the relativist can of course ask: "What makes Rama Rajya superior to the other governments?", "Why should Rama be superior to others?", etc. This is a question born out of our experience from today's worldview where no form of government is without significant flaws. So, if the US asks extremist Islamist despots to give up their dictatorship and embrace 'democracy', the decision is not a no-brainer even for the people. Comparison with Rama's Ashwamedha Yagna is therefore not congruent.

With Rama Rajya, there was no doubt. We are talking about the ideal government, with all its people happy with the rule. For what it is worth, MK Gandhi did want to see Rama Rajya in India after independence (which most Indians conveniently ignore when they talk of Gandhism); although the ideal, how Rama Rajya would be achieved would have been up in the air (much like the Islamists' ideal of a 'just' Khilafa). During the Ramayana, people in other kingdoms will not have seen Rama as an aggressor, and only a tyrant or egoistic king would have seen the need to protest the leadership of Rama.

I know I will not have convinced the relativists, but it is important to see Dharma, the good of the people, truth, etc., as objective and non-relativistic concepts. Without that, there is no way to arrive at the correct answer to important questions, for example, Arjuna's question of whether he should fight his own relatives. Ashoka might have advised diplomacy or surrender.

The pursuit of happiness

Image courtesy: lynndove.wordpress.com

(This post is not related to any of the epics directly..)

Why do we do what we do in life? Why do we go to work, have kids, go to the park for a walk, or study hard? While all these activities may have some intermediate benefits, the ultimate goal of all humans is happiness. There is not one thing that we do that is not in some way aimed at making us happier.

Let's of course leave cases such as masochism out of the picture for now, even though they can be explained without much trouble.

Just one Mahabharata reference related to 'happiness'. Kunti prays to Krishna (not sure when in the Mahabharata) to give her constant sorrow, because she believes that only when in sorrow do we tend to think about God. When happy, we may of course praise God, but the tendency is to tie that momentary happiness to our own accomplishment or activity - "I worked hard and got my bonus", for example. Mere mortals like us would, of course, never pray to God to deal us a tough hand. So, was Kunti an idiot?

As I write these lines, I feel like this post is going to be long winding, but I'll try to keep this concise.


Rebirth. To begin with, we must agree that our lives and transit through the material world necessarily involves a cycle of birth and death. That is, our present lives are not the first and last. I have a simple way of explaining why this must be the case. We all have a sense of natural justice, and even if a human grows up without seeing any other human (eliminate bias and influence), that sense of natural justice is going to prevail. For example, this 'lone' human is not going to kill indiscriminately because something might tell him that that is incorrect. Even when we know that some form of natural justice pervades the world we inhabit, we see injustice all around us. I am not talking about 'local' events here, but the 'full lifecycle'. That is to say, some criminals lead perfectly happy and affluent lives, while some honest hardworking people face nothing but misery. There's of course a continuum between these two extremes. So, if justice didn't prevail in this birth for some people, there must be at least one rebirth and a better model yet, a birth-death cycle that would account for all their good and bad activities. How the 'accounting' takes place is a longer discussion of course, with many schools of thought explaining how good/bad and heaven/hell work.    

Rebirth, of course, is a very difficult concept for us to imagine or accept. If I am going to be born again, am I going to have a different father and mother, a different spouse, different children, and am I going not going to be rich? Let me life the life I have now as well as I can, why should I worry about a rebirth or plan for it in any way? Who is going to count my bad deeds and punish me? I can explain why I cheated on my wife, etc. As a result, much of our pursuit of happiness is short-sighted. Most of us never give any thought to much beyond a good living in this life, and in many cases it is instant and other forms of gratification that we crave. However, the moment we acknowledge that some form of natural justice exists (whether or not we accept the existence of a supreme being) we should ideally start thinking beyond our current lives, and how things might work outside of our limits of knowledge.

Now, back to Kunti (and whether she was an idiot).
All the happiness we experience in life, whether momentary (like eating an ice cream) or extended (like romance) are very materialistic or physical in nature. Still, these 'happy' states are not impenetrable. You can eat one extra cone of ice cream and regret it because it numbed you, or hurt yourself while on a beach with your loved one. The human mind, of course, is accustomed to assuming that the current happiness will never go away, and we make that mistake over and over again.

Sure, everyone knows that life has its ups and downs, etc. based on experience, but most of us want to just put up with this (not knowing a way out), while secretly wanting eternal happiness.

Kunti prays to Krishna to give her constant sorrow because while the sorrow may be physical and material, if she can hold Him in her thoughts, that will be happiness and bliss (that is of a non-material kind). She rightly realizes that the only way to sail through both the ups and downs is to hold God in her thoughts. For, no other source can comfort one through sorrow. Even in times when we might consider ourselves happy (when we've received a raise at work, for example) news that a colleague received a larger raise will tell us that we weren't really 'happy' in the true sense of what we want in the 'happy' state. We ideally want happiness that is uninterruptible, and that state cannot be material or physical in any way.

So, no, Kunti was most definitely not an idiot. If God did grant her constant sorrow and sped her material and physical experiences, may be she would not have to go through a multitude of rebirths. When unaware of how many lives we may have lived already, this doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but once we do realize it, the feeling is not unlike doing the same exact thing at work every day for years and years together. Nobody wants that, and an escape is what we would crave. That is exactly what Kunti must have been shooting for - the concentrated experience that will get her through the material world as quickly as possible. And, of course, the non-material world would mean heaven and uninterrupted happiness for the good.

Law and Order, Dharma

Courtesy: Wikipedia.org

I have always believed that law and order is the primary duty and reason for existence of the government in a state. All other regulations or activities that one would expect a government to do will fall under law and order.

To begin with, life is probably the most important thing that living beings covet. The state must first protect life. That is, when we step out to go to the market, we should not fear for our lives, or face any intimidation that includes potential for violence against our selves.

Going up the 'pyramid', personal belongings, the environment and natural resources, etc., become important. These get into areas where no one man is necessarily affected directly, but the state needs to take on the responsibility for future generations, as well as for the protection of nature in general.

In some ways, the United States, and the modern Western world in general, are successful and just societies (relatively) because of the presence of reliable and effective law and order. Even Jinnah believed this, while unfortunately other Indian leaders of the time unfortunately didn't accord law and order as much importance.

The Manusmruti is probably the oldest book on law and order, and is supposed to cover not just crimes and such but a horde of other do's and don'ts, rituals to be followed, duties of the different classes of people, etc. I began reading a translation of Chanakya's Arthashastra a few months ago. Like the Manusmruti, the Arthashastra too is not necessarily an account of the laws in vogue at the time they were written. The Manusmruti is of course much more ancient than the Arthashastra.

By the way, here's an interesting article by Stephen Knapp on the 'Purpose of Government According to the Mahabharata' where he discusses Manusmruti.

In the Mahabharata, Yudhishtira is hailed as 'Dharmaraja'. An example of his sense of justice is when he chooses to have Nakula brought back to life when all his brothers are killed by a divine 'demon' (Dharma, who Yudhishtira is an avatara of?) Yudhishtira's reasoning for bringing Nakula back in spite of the chance of bringing the powerful Bhima or Arjuna back was that his father had two wives, and he the first wife's son was alive. It was only just to have a son of the other wife alive too, ahead of Arjuna or Bhima. The 'demon' (who was just testing Yudhishtira) brings back all his brothers alive anyway, overjoyed by Yudhishtira's Dharmic stance. Dharma is hence a matter of not just law, but of ethics as well. No punishments for not being Dharmic in many cases.

There probably are some things that are plain obvious to us regarding dharma. Should I kill an animal and eat it just because it is going to be tasty? No. How can you drink milk, it after all is from the cow and intended for its own calf? This is more difficult to answer, but the shrutis (Vedas), Puranas and the Manusmruti all talk of the cow's products as being made available to mankind, and therefore not being off limits. Protecting mankind is the duty of the cow, and taking care of it is ours (putting it between two buns isn't). On other topics, the question of dharma can become tricky, especially since most of us have very limited knowledge.

Caste references by Vishnu...

Image courtesy: spirituality-krishna.blogspot.com

In all of the Mahabharata, I can think of only two instances where Vishnu explicitly mentions or uses the caste of a person for any purpose at all.

Karna goes to learn from Parashurama
Parashurama had taken a vow that he would only teach brahmanas, and hence Karna is forced to pretend that he was a brahmana to learn archery from him.

Karna does learn from Parashurama, including the use of the brahmAstra, the most potent astra there was, for the purpose of fighting Arjuna (?). On one occasion, when Parashurama was resting his head on Karna's thigh to sleep, a wasp bores into Karna's thigh. Karna, not wanting to disturb his guru, does not move but bears the wasp's bite for a while. Because  of the heat generated by the wasp sucking blood, Parashurama wakes up. Realizing that only a kshatriya could bear such pain, he curses Karna to not be able to remember the mantra for the brahmAstra in time of need.

Parashurama, here, does not actually uphold the caste system. He breaks it, and as a rule. Quite a surprising act from the Lord. Further, it's ironic that the first person that recognizes him as a kshatriya (good news?) also gives him bad news in the form of the curse.

Krishna advises Draupadi to reject Karna
Unfortunately, the second instance also involves Karna. Karna contests in the Draupadi swayamvara, and when it appears that he might actually be able to win Draupadi (on advice of Krishna) stops him and rejects him stating that he was not eligible because he was not a kshatriya.

The Purusha Sukta
The purusha sukta has been slighted sometimes and mentioned in controversial light because it is a key sukta in the vedas, and mentions the castes by name.

"Brahmanosya mukhamaseet bahoorajanyahkrutah, ooroo tadasya yadvaishyah padbhyaam shoodro ajayata..."

The sentence is literally translated "the brahmana came from the face of the Lord, the kshatriya from his arms, the vaishyas from his thighs, and the shudras from his feet." The sukta goes on to describe that the moon came from his mind, etc.

I've heard some supporters of the Dravidian movement in Tamil Nadu mention this part of the purusha sukta, and talk about how the upper castes (and God, the "co-conspirator") have set in stone the backwardness of the lower castes.

Firstly, I don't think a literal translation of the vedas is going to yield significant insight. Scholars and schools of thought have evolved over centuries essentially debating the meanings, each school propounding a different meaning or 'spirit' to many such portions of the vedas.

Secondly, the vedas and puranas emphasize that the caste (varnAshrama, really - I don't know that 'caste' is an accurate meaning, but it works for our purpose) of a person is really based on the person's innate qualities or sAdhana, not based on birth or colour (as some people tend to incorrectly translate varna).

However, we also see vedic schools of thought with theories that suggest that while the dharma for a person being born into a certain varnAshrama is that of the typical activities of that varnAshrama for the benefit of society, the ideal progression over several births is from shudra to brahmana. I don't know if this progression refers to the innate quality (sAdhana). There sure must be two different planes on which varnAshrama is defined/used in our scriptures.

In the epics and puranas, we also see instances of caste being dynamic, changing with marriage (at least for the offspring), etc. So one was supposedly able to move between castes. I've never understood how this worked, and how this became rigid over time, though. Even more perplexing is when and how people ended up in a 5th category (the untouchables), beyond the 4 castes. Definitely blemishes in Indian society that no doubt have existed since the days of the Mahabharata or even earlier.

And btw, my examples of Vishnu using the caste of Karna in seemingly negative ways, were not intended to suggest that Vishnu might have done wrong. There sure must have been reasons, and it would be nice to understand in better detail.

Illogical inferences of modern researchers?

Image courtesy: vina.cc

I've seen a bunch of documentaries over the years - mostly by Western researchers (archaeologists, indologists, etc.) on India, its traditions, history, etc. While some of these were well researched and very informative to the western (and sometimes even Indian) audience, they feature somewhat ludicrous inferences/ideas. Maybe I shouldn't rubbish their ideas as ludicrous, but here are a few examples.

A Facebook post began making the rounds recently, one about a History Channel documentary of the discovery of the 'lost city' of Dwaraka. I'd seen this one before and thought I should write about it. Here's an excerpt from the documentary.

The Mahabharata says that Dwaraka was submerged under the ocean 36 years after the Mahabharata itself. Krishna (and to a lesser extent, Arjuna) are said to have played a role in the evacuation of some of the people, after a period of societal decay. I wonder if the story of Dwaraka submerging was actually part of the original Mahabharata, or if it was included only in the retelling of the Mahabharata by sage Vaishampayana (on request by King Janamejaya, son of Parikshit -> son of Abhimanya -> son of Arjuna). Maybe 36 years wasn't that long a period for Janamejaya to come into the picture, but Parikshit himself died early because of a snake bite and Abhimanyu was dead in the war). Maybe I am wrong.. will need to confirm where the story of Dwaraka occurs in the Mahabharata.

While the underwater shots in the documentary are great, the narrator quickly jumps to an alien theory. The mahabharata and our puranas talk of different astras (warheads in today's military parlance). Each divine astra (Pashupathastra, Brahmastra, etc.) is described as being capable of doing certain things (like incapacitating the opponent, bolts of thunder, etc.) There of course were normal 'arrows' that may not be any special astra. This documentary explains these occurrences as caused by aliens and their superior technology. I found the animation shots of a flying saucer shooting lasers to destroy Dwaraka (to help us picture the war between Salwa and Krishna) especially hilarious!

Here's a very well made documentary called 'The Story of India', by the BBC.

There is one particular theory proposed in the documentary that I am not sure how to react to. Go to 4:30 in the video, where the narrator shows you a Brahmin father in Kerala teaching his son Vedic chanting; and a subsequent elaborate yagna. I have a strong feeling that what is being chanted is from the Sama veda (this intuition is with just a wee bit of sama veda chanting experience, and I can't be a 100% sure).

The narrator concludes that this must be non-language based chanting that are likely bird sounds from Africa that some traditions in Kerala still practice, and that these don't actually mean anything to humans.

The sama veda is a branch of the vedas that is musical in nature, and one of the toughest to learn and chant, even with a book in front. Of the ~20 veda/upanishad portions (small ones) that I've had the opportunity to learn to chant, only the Taittiriya upanishad tritiya bhrgu valli (3rd chapter) had a paragraph from Sama veda at the end, fairly simple to learn. Longer portions from the Sama veda, I am sure, are much harder since there is a lot of breath and vocal pitch control required, and each word may be 'sung' for much much longer than the size of the word itself. Sentences and paragraphs of course can go on and on, even if the whole portion is only a page or two long in text.

For people interested in listening to a live Sama veda chant, try the Vishwanath temple in Kashi (Varanasi) in UP. When I was there some 8 years ago, a saptarshi pooja was performed for the shiva linga there, by 7 priests, who chanted from the Sama veda. I believe the saptarshi pooja is performed every week.

It was perhaps this same BBC documentary (it has been a while since I watched it last) where the journalist went searching for soma (soma paana and soma are mentioned frequently in the vedas). The journalist had but one interpretation of soma in mind - an intoxicating drink. He eventually finds an old-world drugs and herbs store in Peshawar, Pakistan where a herb called soma is available. This herb (if I remember right) comes from central asia, and can be used to make an intoxicating drink. The journalist seemed to conclude that the vedas must therefore have been composed in central asia, and not in India. I wish people stopped interpreting ancient Sanskrit with such ignorant callousness.

Rama in the subcontinent and beyond

Happy to be writing a post on Rama on Rama Navami, Nandana Samvatsara...this is less about the Ramayana itself than it is about cultural impact and political issues today.

Rama was born to king Dasharatha of Kosala (capital: Ayodhya) in the Treta Yuga, the third avatar of Vishnu in that yuga - after Vamana and Parashurama. Interestingly, this is the first yuga where Vishnu incarnates as normal humans, the Satya yuga having included Matsya, Koorma, Varaha and Narasimha.

Rama breaking the bow to win Sita. Nobody else
was able to even lift the bow. Raja Ravi Varma.

The story of Rama, by and large, is familiar to most of us from India, and the reason is probably because the Ramayana is such an important part of our culture that the story is familiar to everyone cutting across faiths and subcontinent cultures. In fact, not so long ago many a village in the subcontinent would have a local legend about Rama having passed through on way to Lanka, or Sita having dropped some jewels when being flown by Ravana to Lanka, etc. Whether these were true or not in each case, the pride in being somehow related to Rama can be infectious. Rama is still the benchmark for a man, and comparative references to Rama's eka patni vratha are common even in contemporary conversations. 

There are various estimates for the time period of the Ramayana, ranging from 20,000 years ago to much earlier. Dating events in the previous yugas becomes tricky due to several reasons, including the ages of people and other frames of references being very different. I read some accounts of Rama rajya having run for a period of 11,000 years. Again, I'm unsure of whether this is a time period comparable to 11,000 years in kali yuga. Another aspect to consider is that some schools of thought propose yuga sandhis between different yugas, periods of dormant metamorphosis of the earth where changes in environment, species, continents, etc. take place. Going by this theory, the age of the ramayana would have to account for 2 yuga sandhis.

Javanese Ramayana play. Courtesy hinduyuva.org

What amazes me is the spread of the legend of Rama beyond the seas, to countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia. In fact, the Indonesians do plays to this day depicting the Ramayana. 

The Javanese (Indonesia) version of the Ramayana may not mirror the mainstream Indian versions exactly. Still, that this is still a part of their culture is inspiring.

Rama has become a major flashpoint in India in recent times. The Babri demolition and subsequent riots are an example. The issue however is not as recent as the 1990s, but appears to have been simmering for at least 2-3 centuries, during the Mughal and then British rule of India. I will not go into this issue here, but a more recent 'academic' controversy is worth noting. Delhi University decided to include (and subsequently revoked, after protests) an essay by AK Ramanujam describing several different versions of Ramayana. There do exist perverted versions of the Ramayana that depict Rama and Sita as siblings, for example, but I don't believe that these versions were at all part of the culture of the land. The differences in the credible versions are much more subtle. I haven't read Ramanjuam's essay, but going by media accounts, what he attempted was likely just a collection of the different versions. When in no way reflective of the culture or beliefs of the people, it would have been wise on the part of the history department to leave this essay out, or present it in the right light to students.

Allama Iqbal.
Courtesy: opinion-maker.org

I was surprised to see a post floating around on Facebook a few weeks ago, about poet Mohammad 'Allama' Iqbal having written a poem on Rama. Iqbal was initially an Indian nationalist, and a secular person (much like Jinnah, but they of course ended up supporting the two nation theory eventually). Iqbal of course wrote the famous Sare Jahaan Se Acha Hindustan Hamara before he took a u-turn. Still, I am happy that when he was saner, he saw Rama through the prism of culture and nationhood, and not via religion or faith. On the other side of the political spectrum (of the 1940s), MK Gandhi was also a famous proponent of Rama rajya. I am not entirely sure what he meant when he used the term, but I'm certain it had no particular religious connotation.

Like many others, I wait for the day that a temple for Rama will stand tall again in Ayodhya, where he administered Rama rajya from.

Why Bhima is the real hero of the Mahabharata!

Image: thekarna.wordpress.com

There is many a character that one can claim is the 'real' hero of the Mahabharata. I would leave Krishna out of this discussion. There is no doubt that when the Lord incarnates, He is the protagonist and everything revolves around Him.

Krishna aside, the contenders for the next spot include Arjuna, Krishna, Bhishma, and maybe a few others. Some might even put Duryodhana in their list. I, however, put Bhima on top.

Bhima is born the second son of Pandu and Kunti (an avatar of Vayu). Even as a child, his immense strength is on display. When the Pandava children are playing, Bhima is accidentally dropped on a rock. To the parents' surprise, it is the rock that is shattered and Bhima is as cheerful as ever.

During the training period under Dronacharya, along with the Kauravas, while Arjuna chooses the bow and arrow as his weapon of choice, Bhima picks the gada (mace) and so does Duryodhana. (Duryodhana is also actually taught by Balarama, Krishna's elder brother).

In the Draupadi swayamvara, it is Arjuna who is chosen to contest (shooting a revolving fish's eye, not looking directly at it?). While the popular version of the story tells us that 'Arjuna won Draupadi' but due to Kunti's mistake all the brothers end up 'sharing' her, there are other lesser known versions with deeper explanations. One of the back stories is that Draupadi ends up with '5 husbands' because of a wish that was granted by Shiva to her in her previous birth (as Nalayani, the daughter of Nala and Damayanthi). Instead of getting a husband with her 5 favourite qualities, she ends up getting 5 separate husbands. Shiva also blesses her that she would regain her virginity each morning. I have heard another back story that extends this. 4 other devis (the divine consorts of the other Pandavas I think) also have some similar wish granted, due to which they end up having to share Draupadi's body. It is the right devi that actually inhabits Draupadi's body each time 'Draupadi' is with a Pandava.

In any case, Draupadi herself is considered an avatar of Bharati (consort of Vayu), and hence it cannot be Arjuna that is the 'rightful' husband, even though he is the one that participates in the contest. It sure is Bhima. There is a much longer story behind why Arjuna is chosen to contest, and not Bhima. The story involves Shikhandi (something I recently learned of) and will try to post this sometime soon.

Some other quick points on key Bhima acts/slayings:

1) Even in Duryadhana's court, before Draupadi's vastraapaharana took place, Bhima is all fury, and is controlled by Yudhishtira. He makes a vow to Draupadi that he will bring her the blood of Duhsshasana until which Draupadi vows that she will not wash her hair (?). I don't know of any other Pandava

2) Bhima slays Duryodhana and Duhsshasana in the war. These are the main evil characters in the entire Mahabharata.

3) Bhima sacrifices his son Ghatothkacha without a second thought, for the sake of Dharma. Had it not been for Ghatothkacha, Arjuna may have been harmed by Karna. More on this story later.

4) In no way does Bhima ever doubt that Krishna is the supreme being. Arjuna is in doubt whether Krishna might be harmed, forgetting that Krishna is the one controlling the chariot and Arjuna merely the tool. Yudhishtira is afraid that Duryodhana might harm Krisha when he goes to his court to negotiate peace; again forgetting that He protects all, and there should be no such doubts. I am not taking anything away from Arjuna or Yudhishtira, and I am being nitpicky, but these are devatas we are talking about and each one has his/her position in the hierarchy of the pantheon of Gods.

The "Good or Bad" series: Karna Part 1

(image courtesy dollsofindia.com)

Karna is one of the most controversial characters in the Mahabharata. Karna evokes a lot of sentiments -admiration, hate, pity, "underdog", etc. Many interpretations of the Mahabharata actually side with his side of the story.

Movies like Mani Ratnam's Dalapathi (Rajnikanth, Mammooty) also mirror such interpretations where Rajni is depicted as the cast-away child by an unwed young girl, is a victim of circumstances, becomes a part of Mammooty's group (a criminal ring leader cum do-gooder).

Looking at Karna strictly through the prism of Dharma (or good/bad), I must conclude that he was bad. He sure does some heroic things, so there is definitely the urge to paint him in the grey, as someone who was the victim of circumstances, etc. However, one must resist that since in the Mahabharata, all the characters (neglecting minor transgressions) are either plain good or bad. If nothing else, my general rule of thumb is "if you took the side of Krishna in the war, you were good", "if you took the side of Duryodhana, you were bad" (Balarama who did not participate is a different story, more on him later). Lets us for now, of course, ignore the aspect of avatar or amsha, and focus just on the particular character in the Mahabharata. i.e., when I classify Karna as "bad", I don't necessarily extend that to Surya, whose avatar/amsha is Karna (likewise for Ashwatthama, etc).

Karna joins the side of Duryodhana at a time when the latter's evil ways may not necessarily have been apparent. So, while one may excuse that, especially since Karna's ego is boosted (he is made king of Agna), Karna sticks on as a friend for gratitude, and actively aids him in his evil deeds.

(image courtesy hinduyuva.org)

During the game of dice, when Draupadi is gambled away by Yudhishtira, Duryodhana asks that she be brought into the court. Some of the elders protest, but they are not able to resist Duryodhana because he is the king-in-waiting, and they are beholden to him. Dharma goes out the door. When Duhsshasana tries to molest her, Karna does not merely stay silent with shame (like Bhishma, etc.) but actually spurs him on and abuses Draupadi. This one incident is enough to classify him as bad. A kshatriya worth his salt never shows his might against women or children, only protects; whoever it might be. For that matter, this kind of behaviour is considered hooliganism today, let along in dwapara yuga during Krishna's time! Only Vidura, as far as I know, registered his dissent to the disrobing, but was unable to do anything more. Even the Pandavas did nothing (more on this later).

There are several occasions when Karna is reminded of Dharma, including by Krishna. However, he is so blinded by his misplaced loyalty to Duryodhana that he is unable to listen to wise counsel.