Sunday, August 11, 2013

Conversations on God

Image courtesy: destinyontheopenroad.blogspot.com
In my last post, I urged that the definition of God is very important to man's inquiry and quest for knowledge.

I used this as the primary topic of discussion at an 'intellectual forum' at Sri Krishna Vrundavana in Toronto recently, attended by over ten. Here's an account of the discussion.

We started the discussion off by borrowing a question that was used in the wonderful Harvard course Justice.

The question, in a simplified thought experiment setting, is the following:
A train is going on a track that forks ahead. On the default path at the fork, the train will go on to hit a group of 10 people sitting on the tracks. If the train were to go down the other path, the train will hit a group of 4 people sitting on the tracks. You have the ability to do nothing, or flip a switch that will make the train switch paths (from the default).
Since this is a thought experiment, assume that you do not have the ability to communicate with the two groups of people in any way, that the train is silent enough that the people cannot hear it, and you cannot do things other than flip the switch. The only two choices available to you are clear:

  1. Let the train proceed on its default path, and allow it to kill 10 people
  2. Switch the train's path, and allow it to kill 4 people

This topic made for a wonderful discussion, with the majority preference being flipping of the switch. The argument made was that killing the smaller group of people was the less disastrous outcome.

The following questions and points were raised/made by different people in the discussion.

  • In deciding that killing a smaller group of people was more desirable, what about the characteristics of those people? What if the 10 people were bandits, and the 4 were good people? We don't know anything about these 2 groups of people, so can we only go by their numbers? If we flipped the switch, and it turned out that the 10 were bad people who would cause additional damage to the world around them, are we willing to take responsibility for our 'flip the switch' decision? 
  • Perhaps the 4 people were sitting on the tracks in the non-default path knew that trains do not use that path. If we decided to flip the switch, would it not be grave injustice to them? 
    • Note that it is not at all possible to leave out the concept of justice. It is inherent in the world that we live in, human-enforced justice aside. 
  • Whichever choice we made, it is to be assumed that it was that group's karma/prarabdha (destiny due to their own past deeds) that they were suffering their fate that day.
    • It was interesting to note that from this though experiment emerged the concept of destiny/fate, and that of their deeds. Further, if the group that would get killed included a just-born baby, what deed had it committed in its present birth yet? The only explanation can be that in its part birth, the baby had committed deeds that resulted in its present punishment. And hence, there needs to be a soul in everybody which explains rebirth. 
  • Following from the above point, if there was some (justice) system that kept track of the soul's deeds, surely there must be rules that are checked against? Every act of mine, even a good/evil thought, must be covered under this system?
    • It is possible to argue that the system that pervades is just that - a system, and that there is no God-like entity who is controlling what happens.  
On to the concept of God..
If we did consider that there was a God, if He were simply a justice enforcement system, is He really necessary? It is useful to consider formal schools of thought to help us answer this and other questions.

At this point, the discussion moved on to some of the key Vedic schools of thought - that of Sankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarka, and Madhva. Here is my best understanding of these schools, and also what was presented at the discussion. 

Sankara's Advaita defines the world (that we see and experience) as a Maya, an illusion. Every sensory perception - sight, touch, etc., is an illusion. However, the soul that evolves by gaining knowledge of the truth eventually cuts through the Maya and realizes that it is part of the whole, Brahman (God; not to be confused with Brahmana, of the Varna system). Isvara, on the other hand is the God that we perceive due to Maya - the one with form and attributes, which He otherwise does not possess, for He is nirguNa. Souls (you and I) are part of the whole that is Brahman, and do not have a real existence, although we are required to escape Maya through knowledge. 

Ramanuja's Visishtadvita  defines the world as part of Brahman's body. The plants outside, the sky, our own bodies, the trash in our kitchen, etc., are actual parts of His person. The soul goes through an evolutionary phase, as in Advaita, and with the grace of God, attains salvation and an escape from the material world. Unlike Advaita, though, Brahman does exhibit plurality through the different souls, who are all inferior to Brahman Himself, Brahman being the all-seeing, knowing God with compassion. In salvation, though, the souls become one with Brahman, i.e, lose their difference with Brahman.

Nimbarka's Dvaitadvaita defines the world as at once being homogenous and plural. A common example given is that of the earth being homogenous while also exhibiting plurality with individual parts such as stones of different forms.

Madhva's Dvaita defines the world as being perfectly real, with the world around being part of jada, or a mass of lifeless material. Brahman, a distinct entity, is all-seeing, knowing, does have unique and an infinite, complete, positive list of attributes - compassion (the order of this attribute being infinite, and indescribable in its entirety), etc. The souls are all independent entities, at all times, and in various stages of evolution on their path towards their end state. The souls, are further classified as overall good/bad/middling, with the good souls proceeding on to bliss, the bad ones proceeding on to eternal damnation, and the middling ones in a permanent cycle of birth and death.

Each of these schools of thought has adherents, and a deeper study of each one is necessary to see where our own position on God might lie. You will be surprised how many assumptions you already have about His qualities, and of the world around you...

Sunday, July 21, 2013

The All-important Definition of God

The definition of the entity that is God is all-important for any school of thought. The definition of God may be consolidated for any school from its core scriptures, commentaries and interpretations - whether the school of thought is based on the Vedas or not.

I've had people tell me that the definition didn't matter. Whoever, or whatever He was, they'd still pray to Him (or be indifferent). I'd urge that it does indeed matter, and is perhaps the most important topic there is to ponder over. Consider the following:

  1. If you pray to Him, do you think He is listening to you? 
  2. When you ask Him for something, and He doesn't give it to you, what does that tell you about Him?
    • If you believe what you are asking Him is just (let's say you are fighting a case against a criminal who stole money from you, and you pray to God to win the case), and your prayer does not yield any results, will you conclude that His sense of justice is perhaps flawed? What kind of system might He have going on? 
  3. Have you ever asked the question: "If He is all powerful, why does He not remove all the unhappiness and poverty in the world?"
    • If you do not belong to the group of people that became atheists without receiving a satisfactory answer to this question, what kind of system do you think He might have going on?
I urge you to think about these questions. Try to formulate your definition of God. 
A 'definition' may include attributes (material characteristics, physical form, etc), abilities (all-seeing and knowing, omnipresent) and qualities (kindness, sense of justice, etc). 

My next post will put forth a definition of God based on a school of thought I subscribe to. I'll also present some alternate definitions.

Monday, April 22, 2013

The Beauty of Kamba Ramayanam

I began writing a rather long post titled "An Introduction to Vedic Philosophy in My Own Words", but as soon as I started I remembered a small portion of Kamba Ramayanam that I had read on a website a month ago. With Rama Navami just 4 days ago, I decided to simply write about Kamba Ramayanam. For full disclosure, I have never read Kamba Ramayanam, but after hearing this beautiful small portion, I now want to.
Image courtsy: dollsofindia.com
..angu un kAl vaNNam kaNden
ingu un kai vaNNam kaNden.. -(1)

This, and another portion that I remember my father referring to a long time ago:

kaNdanan karpinuk kaNiyai kaNgaLaal.. - (2)

In (1), Kambar refers to Rama killing Ravana, and His (hands') prowess with the bow, while also beautifully referring to the sanctity of His feet in redeeming Ahalya from her curse. Even an adultress is purified when Rama's feet touches her. As regards Rama's killing of Ravana, Kamba Ramayanam is said to describe the scene beautifully, and by the Wikipedia account to be experienced by reading!

Note that while every portion of Kamba Ramayanam oozes devotion to the Lord, it may not be fully accurate, for it is a recent retelling and there is obviously a lot of poetic freedom taken. I'm not complaining, though!

(2) refers to Hanuman reporting on his finding of Sita in Ravana's garden in Lanka. Kambar alludes to Rama's eagerness to hear good news about Sita, and Hanuman not adding to the suspense by starting his words with an affirmative kaNdanan. (The poetic license here, of course, is that Rama is portrayed as being vulnerable, which can not apply to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.)

I don't want to let this post go without a bit of a take on Vedic philosophy. While many may consider the Vedas to be focused on rigid rituals and inquiry, bhakti is really the most important aspect. With inquiry may come knowledge, but without bhakti to back it up, there will be no happiness in having acquired that knowledge. Even inaccurate knowledge must be acceptable to the Lord, as long as the bhakti is honest.

Happiness (Ananda) is really what all of us seek. Anything else that we believe we might be seeking is only a means to this end. The difference between each of us is that we seek it in different ways.

  • For some of us, happiness must be permanent, and we seek lasting happiness and joy. This can only come from an understanding of the universe, of its creator, of the nature of the animate and the inanimate, and of the purpose of life. The pursuit of this happiness does not come without bhakti.
  • For some of us, the eye cannot see beyond momentary happiness, and we seek pleasure whether physical or otherwise. Even happiness from work, from good health, from providing others food, from seeing one's kin flourish, etc., will all fall under momentary happiness, for eventually it will all go away. The pursuit of this happiness needs but a calculative mind and an organized lifestyle, and of course inexplicable luck. 
  • For the lowest amongst us, happiness is not of the self but depends on others' suffering. This does not have to be dictators and mass murderers; even those that can say no good word or do no good deed (while still being within legal limits) can still qualify. The happiness thus derived will not even qualify as happiness but as the satisfaction derived from sadism, etc.  

Friday, February 15, 2013

Interesting Mahabharata Dates and Times

This article is largely based on an excellent 2-hour talk on the Mahabharata, in Kannada. It is by Bannanje Govindacharya, an important contemporary scholar in the Dvaita tradition, and I learned a lot of new things.


Krishna's Birthday
Krishna's birthday is contentious - is Krishna Ashtami in the Shravana month or the Bhadrapada month? We know he was born on an ashtami night, and it was rohini nakshatra. The Mahabharata itself does not pick one of the two months. Krishna Ashtami is either of the months, depending on which happens to be the "Simha maasa (month)". Further, if the Rohini nakshtra coincides with the Ashtami, there is said to be a "Jayanthi yoga" (which may not occur every year) which makes that Krishna Ashtami a Krishna Jayanthi.

Ages of Some Important Characters in the Mahabharata
When analyzing the late dwapara yuga period (mahabharata), we tend to gloss over all evil characters and focus on Duryodhana. Before Duryodhana became prominent (and contemporary with him), there were Narakasura (eastern India), Jarasandha (Magadha/Bihar), and Kamsa (northern India).

  • Jarasandha was much older than Krishna, but had amassed 23 akshaouhinis to fight Krishna (an akshaouhini was a large unit of army). In comparison, the Mahabharata war itself involved only 18 akshaouhinis (7 on the Pandava side, 11 on the Kaurava side). Jarasandha had amassed his much larger army (from vassals across the country) to fight a Krishna who was no more than 10-11 years old at the time, enraged by Krishna's killing of Kamsa. Krishna routs Jarasandha's army 17 times, but the 18th time Krishna moves the Yadavas from Mathura to Dwaraka. This is because the commander of the Jarasandha army then is Kalayavana, who is destined to destroy Mathura. 
Jarasandha had imprisoned 80,000+ princes from across the country, and was moving closer to a count of 100,000 for beheading them in a sacrifice. They are eventually freed by Krishna when he takes Bhima and Arjuna to fight Jarasandha for Yudhishtira's rajasuya yagna.

When Krishna, Bhima, and Arjuna present themselves before Jarasandha, Krishna lets Jarasandha pick any one of them for an opponent, and any weapon of his choice. Jarasandha throws Krishna an insult saying he was afterall a cowherd Yadava. He also insults Arjuna by saying he was a young boy, and hence he would not pick him.

It is interesting to note that Bhima was a few months elder to Krishna (55 at the time), and Arjuna himself was only a year younger than Bhima. Hence, if Arjuna was too young, Bhima must be too.

The reasoning behind Jarasandha picking Bhima must have been this:
  1. Krishna would be impossible to beat, his prowess having already been known to him, whether he considered him the Lord incarnate or not. Throwing an insult was his way of escaping sure and humiliating death at the hands of someone who routed his army 17 times (although Jarasandha basked in Krishna's shift to Dwaraka the 18th time).
  2. The only reason could have been Jarasandha's comparative strengths. 
    1. Arjuna's strength was widely considered to be nearly equal to Jarasandha, and hence there would be a 50-50 chance of him winning. A loss would be humiliating.
    2. Bhima, on the other hand was widely known to be the strongest man at the time. Strong in physical power, undefeatable in any form of war (and the most faithful among Krishna's devotees). A defeat at his hands would not be humiliating, but the off chance that he wins, he would earn great glory. There of course is no chance he could win; Krishna still grants him glory by letting Bhima wait 15 days before finishing him off. Lasting 15 days against Bhima was probably much more glory than any other Kshatriya had earned at that time. 
In the Mahabharata text, there is no ambiguity from Vedavyasa in describing Bhimasena as the best man that walked the earth at that time, unparalleled in all good qualities physical and mental; note that this was a time when all devatas and rishis incarnated in Bharatavarsha. This, of course, does not include Krishna, who no other being divine or otherwise is ever compared to.
"..bhimasena samo naasti senayor ubhayor api panditye cha patutve cha.. tatvajnane..paanditye.."

To be safe, Jarasandha (~70 at the time) crowns his son the king of Magadha before he starts the fight against Bhima.
After his death, the freed princes all, without bloodshed or further violence, assure support to Yudhishtira for the Rajasuya. If nothing else, this was great diplomacy and tact by Krishna.
  • Narakasura had imprisoned thousands of  princesses, and Krishna frees them after killing Narakasura. It is this event that we celebrate even today as Deepavali.
Since the princesses had all been humiliated by imprisonment, Krishna marries them all and grants them self-respect.

The Rajasuya Agrapooja
On the day of the Rajasuya yagna of Yudhishtira, all the important Kshatriyas and others were gathered in the palace. These included Vedavyasa, Parashurama, Krishna, Krishna's father Vasudeva, and of course the Pandavas, Bhishma, etc.

The Pandavas request Bhishma, their family's eldest, to pick their chief guest of honour for the yagna ("agrapooja"). Bhishma picks Krishna. The choice is interesting, given that Vedavyasa and Parashurama would have been controversy-less choices. Krishan afterall was younger than most others among the guests, and was not even a Kshatriya. 
  • Parashurama would have been a great choice, for He was also an incarnation of Vishnu. No Kshatriya or other would dare oppose Parashurama for obvious reasons.
  • Vedavyasa, also an incarnation of Vishnu, was the progenitor of the Pandavas and Kauravas, and another great choice.
The Rajasuya yagna is the only occasion in which there are 3 human incarnations of vishnu, all participating. Given 3 equally good choices, I'm unsure why Bhishma picks Krishna, but when Shishupala protests and insults Krishna (as a eunuch) and Bhishma (as old and senile), Bhishma challenges any kshatriya assembled to face the old man (him) in battle if they disagreed with his choice. None dared disagree. Finally, when Shishupala continues his insult of Krishna, Krishna finishes him off with his chakra.

The 'Eternal' Parashurama
Parashurama is considered an avatara of Vishnu who does not leave the earth. The puranas say that Parashurama will teach Kalki (at the end of the Kali yuga) the art of war and help Him finish off the world.       

It is, of course, fascinating how more than one avatara of Vishnu appears concurrently, the most interesting of which is during the Mahabharata. Parashurama, in fact, is the teacher of Bhishma and Karna. Parashurama being unable to defeat Bhishma (fighting for Amba) must only be an enactment, similar to other enactments of the Lord in the Mahabharata. For, why else would an omnipotent God do anything through other entities?

Into the Kali Yuga
Many consider the start of Kali Yuga to be when Krishna left the earth. However, this is incorrect, and Kali Yuga starts exactly at the end of the war (death of Duryodhana). Krishna, 70 at the time of the war, stays on for 36 years into the Kali Yuga while Yudhishtira rules. It is after this that Parikshit is crowned king. 
I was initially under the impression that Parikshit was the first king during the Kali Yuga. It  in fact was Yudhishtira. Once Krishna leaves the earth, the devatas do not find the earth inhabitable in Kali Yuga...

Monday, February 11, 2013

Try having no ego, zero Attachment, and doing good

Image courtesy:
http://swamishivapadananda.typepad.com
It is easy to advice people to have no ego, to give up attachment, and to do good all the time. The shaastras drive home these points over and over again, and we may even parrot these, but it is in the implementation that we stumble.

Ego
Ego manifests in all of us, sometimes in subtle ways, and sometimes in very ways apparent. We take credit all the time for bringing home a steady salary, for example, or for cracking an exam, but may only give up our ego and thank God when faced with a challenge - the news of a potential layoff, or a question we might have not expected in the exam. Without those sudden jolts, we may never have the opportunity to invoke or remember God.

After the Mahabharata war, both Dhritarashtra and Gandhari are so full of anger at their sons' death that Gandhari curses Krishna to see his own clan destroy itself, and Dhritarashtra wants to hug Bhima, the killer of his 100 sons (to crush him with his embrace, since he was endowed with the strength of a 10,000 elephants).  Even after the vishwaroopa darshana from Krishna in their very court before the war, their egos get the better of them. Dhritarashtra, of course, ends up hugging an iron statue believing it to be Bhima, which crumbles to pieces.

With Karna, ego made him build loyalty towards Duryodhana since he helped him in time of humiliation, by making him king of Anga. Ego pushes him to the extent of humiliating Draupadi during the gambling, just because it will make his benefactor happy.

Zero Attachment
Zero attachment to that which is material and transient is the key message of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. Assembled on the battlefield, Arjuna is unable see his kshatriya dharma; he forgets resolutions that he had made previously, including seconding Bhima's vow on his behalf in Duryodhana's court (after Draupadi vastraapaharana) that he will kill Karna. He forgets those innocents that want the good to fight and win against the evil. Krishna admonishes him to uphold his dharma, to fight evil, whether the opponents be his own cousins or unrelated. Worldly relations come and go, with souls migrating from one living form to another through the course of their lifecycle. Hence, attachment to someone's present form (cousin, uncle, etc.) causes one to break dharma.

Arjuna is finally convinced, and fights the war, although he relapses midway. When news of Abhimanyu's death in the chakravyuha reaches him, he breaks down. Evidently, letting go of attachment is very difficult even for the avatara of Indra.

Doing Good
The is no doubt Yudhishtira was a great upholder of dharma. However, there are occasions where he did not follow dharma. On the battlefield, when Krishna instructs him to lie to Drona about Ashwatthama's death, he hesitates. There is no greater dharma than following what Krishna says, but Yudhishtira holds another moral compass, likely ego-driven that tells him to follow his own instinct rather than Krishna's words.

In another episode described in the Varaha Purana (after the war), Vishnu himself visits Yudhishtira's palace at night as a poor brahmin asking for resources to conduct a yagna. Yudhishtira tells the poor brahmin to come the next morning since it was late. The poor brahmin then goes to Bhima, and Bhima immediately removes a gold ornament and hands it over to the brahmin. Bhima then goes to Yudhishtira and tells him (perhaps mockingly) that he is very happy that Yudhishtira has knowledge of his life in the future, which allows him to postpone a good task until the next morning. Yudhishtira is ashamed.

There are occasions in which our ego, or our own crooked sense of good interfere with our upholding of dharma (or what little of it we subscribe to). The only way to correct this to the extent possible is to attribute all our acts and abilities to God, rather than take credit for anything. 

Friday, February 8, 2013

If you only have time to read one text, pick the Mahabharata

The Mahabharata is many things to many people.

Madhvacharya's Mahabharata Taatparya Nirnaya, states that the Mahabharata was called "Jaya", for it outweighed the Vedas and other Shastras, as determined in a congregation of rishis post-Mahabharata. On a more simplistic level, "Jaya" is usually said to refer to the Pandavas' (dharma's) victory over evil.

The primary message of the Mahabharata is that of Vishnu's supremacy and independence. This may not be readily apparent to the casual reader, who might treat it more as a war among cousins and their cronies for control of land. To this end, here are summaries of a few episodes...

Krishna comes to the rescue many a time.

The episode that most comes to mind is that of the Draupadi Vastraapaharana. When even the mighty Bhima is unable to do anything, Krishna is there to help at a mere prayer from Draupadi to save her modesty. Here, rather than infer that Bhima is powerless (which he is not really, there are other factors in that episode like his own brother's commitment), one must infer that Bhima and Draupadi, both, pray to Krishna for help - for they are dependent on Him, the supreme being.

The Durvasa-Draupadi Episode
In another episode during the 12 year banishment to the forest, the Pandavas eat good food (and are able to feed the rishis who accompany them) using an akshaya paatra from Surya. The akshaya paatra would only produce food until Draupadi, the lady of the house, had eaten. Meanwhile, Rishi Durvasa visits Duryodhana's palace in Hastinapura, and pleased with his service, grants him a wish. Duryodhana uses the opportunity to request that Durvasa and his group of rishis visit the Pandavas in the forest, knowing well that Durvasa would curse the Pandavas when they are unable to feed him and his group as befits a king. (Durvasa was know to have a short temper. He appears earlier in the Mahabharata when Kunti as a young princess serves him well and receives the boon of invoking any God for having sons).

By the time Durvasa arrives at the Pandava camp, Draupadi has already eaten and the akshaya paatra has stopped producing food for the day. Yudhishtira welcomes the rishi, directs them to the river for a bath, and asks Draupadi to prepare to serve the rishi and his group. Draupadi, who is cornered, prays to Krishna to save her and her family from Durvasa's curse. Krishna appears at a moment's notice, asks to be shown to the akshaya paatra, and eats a morsel that remained. With this, he tells Draupadi to wait and watch. When Durvasa and his group return from the river, they tell Yudhishtira that they are full, and that they would have to continue on their way. Krishna uses the single morsel of food as a token offering from his devotee, and saves her from doom yet again.

The Caveat to 'Yada Yada hi Dharmasya Glaanihi bhavati... Tadaatmaanam Srujamyaham'
There is an important caveat to this statement from Krishna. Dharma being in peril is intrisically tied to the goodness of people.

  • In the Krita Yuga, He appears as Matsya (to save the world from complete extinction), as Koorma (to help the devas win against the asuras), as Varaha (to retrieve the earth hijacked by Hiranyaksha), as Vaamana (again to help the devas win against Bali, an asura by pushing him down to a Paatala loka).
    • It is only the Nrsimha avatara that is dedicated to one single person's devotion - Prahlada. Prahlada's father Hiranyaksha had declared himself God, and was obstructing all real worship. However, it is Prahlada's unwavering devotion and stance that makes the Nrsimha avatara happen.
  • In the Treta Yuga, Parashurama and Rama avataras happen; the Parashurama avatara to generally rid the earth of several tyrannical rules right up to the Dvapara Yuga.
  • In the Dvapara Yuga, Krishna takes avatara to rid the world of several rakshasas and helps the Pandavas rid the world of the Kauravas.
While the conditions in the Kali Yuga are easily much worse than in the previous yugas, why does He not incarnate? He does not because there is none that upholds the Dharma truly and completely as do his devotees who he immediately comes to help (in person) in the previous yugas. We are all complicit to varying degrees in the adharma that fills the world today, and the next avatara according to the Puranas is the Kalki avatara which will end the world and usher in the next mahayuga. That is not to say that there are no good people in Kali Yuga; there are. Just not good enough to merit His avatara. He still guides and shadows the deserving and undeserving alike, unseen, to provide them the best paths to their destiny.

Kunti's Parting Request to Krishna
When the war is over, and Krishna seeks to return to Dwaraka, Kunti requests him to give her sorrow. For, it is only in sorrow that we remember Him. This, after all the sorrow that she and her sons had faced. Kunti's first major blow was that of the birth of Karna via Surya. She then loses her husband, and has to raise 5 children. The 5 sons, powerful and divine though they might be, go through a series of attacks - hidden and direct - by the Kauravas, including the gambling, banishment, and ultimately the war. Kunti thanks Krishna for his hand in saving her family from all the pitfalls and dangers, instead of asking for a life of happiness going forward. She truly recognizes that happiness on earth is not eternal, and that the opportunity to know Him more through contemplation is worth more than happiness, to help in her path to eternal bliss, Moksha.

Krishna in the War
Before, during, and after the war, the Pandavas will not have been able to accomplish anything without Krishna. Before the war, it is with Krishna's guidance that Bhima is able to destroy Jarasandha. It is with Krishna's guidance that the Pandavas win and marry Draupadi. It is with His guidance that they are able to overcome Bhishma, Drona, and Ashwattama. While Bhima may have been able to win the war single-handedly, the other brothers needed His help to even survive. Krishna saves Arjuna in more than one occasion (helps win against Karna by provoking him to waste his Shakti astra against Ghatotkacha, for example). If there is one truly revealing spot in the Mahabharata where even Bhima's dependence on the supreme being, it is when Ashwattama uses the Narayanaastra against the Pandavas. Krishna instructs the Pandavas, including Bhima, to lay down their arms and surrender to the astra completely to be left untouched.

  • Bhima, who as his previous incarnation Hanuman, is unaffected by even the Brahmaastra (he only surrenders to it out of respect) can only be defeated using the Narayanaastra. Bhima, unknowingly fights the astra (likely urged by Krishna to do so, for Bhima would not fight the only astra superior to him on purpose) and successfully holds against it, but is worn down over time. Finally, when he is told by his brothers that it was the Narayanaastra and to surrender, he does so. I believe the only purpose of this episode was to highlight Bhima as the foremost among the jeevas and devas.   
Krishna keeps the Kuru Dynasty Alive
Krishna saves Parikshit (in the womb of Uttara, the dead Abhimanyu's wife) from the Brahmaastra of Ashwattama. Krishna stops it using his chakra, to retain the Pandavas' last remaining prince to keep the Kuru dynasty alive. 


There is no doubt, from these examples that Vishnu's (Krishna) supremacy, and his complete support of his true devotees, is the primary message of the Mahabharata. In addition, since it encompasses the messages of all other shaastra texts combined as well as all possible topics under the sun, worldly and spiritual, it is one that we can safely hold on to for our intellectual upliftment.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Interpreting Vedic and Puranic Texts in a Vacuum and Out of Context

Image Courtesy: www.anjalika.in
I intended this post as an "unlearning-relearning" lesson for people (including me) to remove any prejudices that might exist in our interpretation of Vedic, Puranic, and other ancient Hindu scriptural texts. Prejudices may include - "all this is made up by brahmins", "anybody arguing 'for' any of this is an apologist", etc. Hopefully, any judgement will be made at the end of the entire post.

Please comment if you see me making any factually inaccurate statements or have anything to share.

The Vedas (encompassing Upanishads, Braahmanas, etc.) Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata (including the Bhagavad Gita), Aagamas, Manusmruti, Brahmasutras, and some other texts form the core scriptural texts of the Hindu system.

Of these, the Vedas are the only texts considered "shruti" ("apaurasheya" or authorless). In the Hindu system, the Vedas exist eternally without at any point in time or space being created or destroyed - like the laws of physics (although portions of the Vedas may be unavailable at times or incorrectly understood). The eternal existence of the Vedas is identical to that of the supreme being and the infinite number of souls. The unwritten nature of the Vedas are the reason why they form the final point of reference when considered alongside all other texts. And the Vedas are a neutral final point of reference even over say, the Bhagavad Gita rendered by the supreme being (Krishna avatara).

Timelines of these Texts
We know that the Bhagavad Gita was rendered by the supreme being (Krishna) to Arjuna on the Mahabharata battlefield. At the end of the Gita, when Arjuna is ready to fight, the war begins. This makes it easy to date the Bhagavad Gita (based on other accounts, e.g., that of Sanjaya).

The Mahabharata was first recorded by Vedavyasa. The war itself, of course was described by Sanjaya in real-time. The entire Mahabharata was retold by sage Vaishampayana to Janamejaya (son of Parikshit and descendant of the Pandavas).

Even with these timelines, there are some things to note. The events of the Mahabharata play out at the end of the Dwapara Yuga (around 5000 years ago). Janamejaya is the second Kuru king in the Kali Yuga which is believed to have begun during the reign of Parikshit.

With most other texts, most notably the Vedas, there have been attempts (mostly by Europeans) to date each part of the Vedas. Contrary to the traditional India belief of the Vedas being not time-bound, the Europeans used the Vedas very literally. Descriptions of regions, peoples, and rivers (for example) were used as descriptions of these at a certain time in history. For good reason or bad, these attempts were also driven by a linguistic analysis of the Vedas. There is wide variance in the Sanskrit style used, which suggested to the analysts different authors who contributed to the Vedic whole at different points in time. "Vedic period" is a common term we hear.

In the Vedas, portions (mantras, suktas) are ascribed a "rishi moola" or a sage who discovered ('was revealed to') that portion of the Vedas and made it available to the common man. This attribution is not one of authorship, but one of discovery. In the Hindu system (as the Vedas themselves state), the Yugas (in Manvantara after Manvatara, Kalpa after Kalpa of Brahma) play out infinitely. Just as the souls and the supreme being exist without beginning or end, the Vedas (that arguably are the 'documentation') exist indefinitely too. In each Mahayuga, the Vedas that "exist in the ether" are merely rediscovered for the benefit of humans.

What changes in each iteration is either the 'Manu' (each Manu's reign runs for about 71 Mahayugas the current Manu is Vaivasvatha), or the Kalpa (one day-time equivalent of Brahma; we are currently in the Shveta Varaha Kalpa). I don't know if any such details are known to man beyond the current Kalpa. The main rishis may change from Mahayuga to Mahayuga, and hence perhaps Puranic details that relate to the specifics of that Yuga.

A Pause
Let's take a pause here. There may already be several questions in our heads regarding the authenticity or validity of what the Vedas or Puranas say. Why must one believe the stories that a Purana might say? Why must a Kalpa be as long as it is claimed to be? How can something be authorless (i.e., the Vedas)?  If there is a Manu reigning now, where is he? I don't believe there can be any conclusive proofs that that answer these questions. Below are some things to consider.

The Metaphorical vs The Literal
The Vedas and Puranas use a lot of linguistic instruments and styles to convey things. It is fair to say, based on centuries and millennia of analysis and schools of thought that exist and thrive even today, that these texts have layered meanings, sometimes apparently conflicting one another. For example, the Rudraprasna (Rudram) may convey at a superficial level (to someone with rudimentary Sanskrit knowledge) the supremacy of Rudra/Shiva. The Narayana Upanishad may convey at a superficial level the supremacy of Narayana. What do Rudra and Narayana denote? Are they just 2 among the many million Hindu gods? Who is supreme, Rudra or Narayana? What does supreme mean, by the way? What are the qualities of God? These are questions that require deep analysis. The Hindu system has been predominantly rooted in the analysis of theVedas, for they are believed to be authorless. The other texts (whether God-given or human-written) are additional texts for reference, but cannot override anything the Vedas say.

It is this metaphorical nature of our texts that confuses many. The Purusha Sukta says "padbhyaam shoodro ajaayata". So, the shudra (in the Varna system) must have originated from God's legs? I don't think it is to be interpreted as literally as that.

Unfortunately, many translations that float around, especially on the internet, are poor translations. Either they do not provide the right context, or are outright incorrect. A lot of things are lost in translation, from Sanskrit to English. For example, I read some translations of passages from the Manusmriti as it relates to women. One translation read something like this: "women always look to seduce men, so be careful around them." I highly doubt that that was what the Manusmriti said. Bottles and bottles of ink have been wasted by people coming up with or using such translations to brand the Manusmriti as being anti-women. The correct import (corroborated by many other texts) is for men to control all their senses for a laser-like focus on their intellectual pursuits, and be careful around things that are likely to cause distractions. And, remember that "lose control" itself is an approximate translation. Controlling of senses includes the eating of Satvic-only foods (the avoidance of meat, some root vegetables, etc.), the performance of strict penances and yagnas ("sacrifice" is another of those poor translations), avoidance of wealth and material comforts, etc. The implication is not (and cannot be) that women are all seductresses. Any Indian can tell you that.

The Decline of Dharma and Morality through the Yugas
Most in the Hindu system believe that dharma and morality have gradually declined over the ages. This is not merely through what the Puranas or other texts say, but through general experience as well. Just in the last century, there is a general decline in personal and family values and an individualistic push towards material wealth and comforts. This goes against the simple lifestyles that were the norm even a century ago. No doubt there was bloodshed in the middle ages and before between kings and their armies. The general peace that we experience in much of the world today is, by no means, an indicator of dharma being somehow in any upward trajectory.

The Krita (Satya) Yuga, the Puranas describe, was a time when there was nothing but goodness, with no hint of evil. No jealousy, no greed, no hunger, no physical duties other than austerities and hardship (tapasya) that men and women put themselves to for intellectual and spiritual needs. There was no need to cook or indulge in any physical hardship for survival, for, the absolute lack of any evil (or evil intent) enabled the conjuring up of any food man desired. Of course, man would not 'desire' food, for the only real desire would be intellectual upliftment. It is difficult for us today to imagine what a time like that might have been, where, for e.g., no laws were required (for no crimes were intended or committed). Everybody lived their lives as prescribed in the Vedas not out of compliance but out of their own volition.

Note that this blissful state of the Krita Yuga is not to do with individual human being alone, but with the entire human race at that time. Equally good men and women have existed in other yugas (in Treta and Dwapara, at least) but the human race at that time did not collectively have the virtue of the Krita Yuga.

The Manusmriti is believed by some (mostly those that don't know exactly what is in it) to be one of the main reasons for Indian society's ills today. Note that much of what the Manusmriti says are corroborated in many of our other texts such as the Puranas. The roles of people in the different Varnas,  for example. Modern interpretations tend to assume that the Brahmins had it good and luxurious according to the rules they themselves established. Quite the contrary. Note that with their role being intellectual inquiry and dissemination to others, the lifestyle prescribed for them is one of begging for food. Do you believe that Brahmins of the Manusmriti might be better off than what the Shudras are prescribed? Think again. The Brahmins are to beg, the Shudras could buy food from the Vaishyas. Again, "beg" is a poorly translated word. Bhiksha or daana (charity) are not the same as "begging" in today's world.

In the Treta Yuga (during which Rama incarnated), there was already a decline in dharma. Examples of evil (normal human behavior according to today's yardstick) include Kaikeyi scheming against Rama, of Vali kidnapping his own brother Sugriva's wife, of Sugriva forgetting his promise to Rama of helping search Sita, etc. With the beginning of a decline in dharma in the Treta Yuga came the varna system (this I believe is when Manusmriti was really composed and kicked in). Rules and regulations for the conduct of people, the duties of kings, of brahmins, of vaishyas who run the economy, etc came into effect.

It is my understanding that the varna system as it existed in its earliest form allowed for people to move from one varna to another after they had proved themselves worthy of it. The varna system was not strictly based on one's birth. Why would not everybody want to move to the "highest level" of Brahmins? Because it meant an austere life with little material pleasure outside of marital life. It is not just a 1st class ticket that the varna system accorded to Brahmins. You could not simply sign up to become a Vaishya unless you were capable of managing wealth and contributing to the agrarian society and economy in the right way, or a Kshatriya unless you had that talent. All this said, I need to investigate further to learn more about the evolution and degradation of the varna system through the yugas. I have a lot of unanswered questions myself.

Clearly, the varna system has become more rigid through the Yugas, especially in Dwapara and of course even more rigid in Kali Yuga. Even in the Dwapara Yuga, Krishna incarnates to rid the earth of tyrant Kshatriya kings. Subcastes based on intermarriage seem to have come into vogue even in the Dwapara Yuga (for e.g., Soota - Karna's perceived caste - was the caste of those born of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother). At some point in the Kali Yuga, there appear to have emerged outcastes (Dalits) for reasons that I don't understand. This is clearly a major problem with the way the varna system evolved. Brahmins today do not necessarily have only intellectual pursuits or lead austere lives, the Vaishyas fleece society, the Kshatriyas do not protect their people well, etc., leading to general discontentment and disbelief in the system.

Note that the Varna system flourished for the benefit of all with pervasive mutual trust and the fulfilment of roles and responsibilities, not when abuse had begun corrupting it.

Conclusion
Our opinions (usually extreme) on the Varna system, on our scriptural texts - their stories and other content, are for the most part based on what we believe to be in them, not based on our own study. We lack the context to properly interpret them, and whether our own extreme point of view is one of complete trust or hate, it will do us well to apply the proper context and learn from what they have to offer. 

Monday, January 14, 2013

Uttarayana, Pulp Dharma, and Some other things..

Uttarayana is one half of the luni-solar year, it being the "day" for devas (celestials). Dakshinayana is the other half, it being the "night" for devas. A human luni-solar month is, by the way, a full day for pitrus (our ancestors that have departed the earth). Shukla paksha and Krishna paksha of the month (fortnights) are the "day" and "night" of pitrus.

Many associate the start of Uttarayana with Makara Sankaranthi. However, these are not the same. There are minor time differences (ayanamsha or small time period differences, which I am not familiar enough with to describe here) that add up every year to put the start of Uttarayana further and further from Makara Sankaranthi every year. Of course, the furtherance only impacts us when the differences add up to a full day. In fact, over several thousand years, Uttarayana will move towards June and then again towards December and January, with this cycle repeating itself.

In Uttarayana (uttara means north and dakshina means south) the sun moves in the northerly direction (not literally) among the astrological signs.

Prabhasa, one of the Vaasus (a group of 8 celestial beings) visits the ashrama of Vasishta, and urged by his wife steals his cow Kamadhenu (or was it Nandini, the calf?). The vaasus are then curses by Vasishta to incarnate on earth as humans.
The curse of incarnation on earth as humans is interesting. This must means that Vasishta's ashrama was in one of the upper worlds (not bhu-loka [earth], but suvar-loka or other).
Incarnating during any of the yugas but Krita (Satya) Yuga must be a hellish time for devas because of the lack of dharma and all the evil. i.e., even during Rama rajya in Treta Yuga or when Krishna in walking the earth during Dwapara Yuga. Of the 8 vaasus, the first 7 get lenient punishments. Ganga would incarnate as their mother (wife of King Shantanu) and kill them off as infants. The 8th vaasu who was the actual thief would incarnate as a very illustrious Kshatriya and live a long life, thus suffering Dwapara Yuga, along with the witnessing of his clan get destroyes, while on earth.
Interestingly enough, the wife of Prabhasa (the vaasu that incarnates as Bhishma) doesn't seem to be getting any punishment. Does it mean that among the devas the husband shares punishment for the wife's crimes too? It is she that urged him to steal. Among the humans, the husband shares his punya with his entire family, including the wife. Oh well!  
Shantanu, his father, grants Bhishma the boon of choosing to die whenever he wishes to (for having chosen a life of celibacy to get the fishergirl married to him father). When he is felled on the battlefield by Arjuna (read the role of Shikhandi elsewhere on the blog), he chooses to end his life after Uttarayana starts, instead of the less-than-auspicious Dakshinayana.
Dharma forbids suicide, which leads to a pishacha existence post-death. This is why Bhishma does not choose to end his life prior to being felled on the battlefield. The only time he is ready to lay down his arms (barring in front of the invalid Shakuni) is when Krishna rushes at him with his chakra when Arjuna is unable to dispose of him.
Yesterday I read an interesting account of Bhishma's promise to Duryodhana during the Mahabharata war. When Duryodhana confronts Bhishma about his hesitance to kill the Pandavas (barring Bhima, he would be able to easily rid everyone else), Bhishma promises that the next day either the Pandavas would be dead or he would force Krishna to draw a weapon. i.e. indicating that his onslaught would be so severe that Krishna would break his vow of not drawing a weapon during the war. The next day, however, when Arjuna is unable to make any impact in his battle with Bhishma (a combination of disinclination and inability), Krishna rushes at Bhishma to kill him with his sudarshana chakra. Bhishma begs krishna to kill him, for what better blessing than to be killed on the battlefield by the supreme being Himself. Bhishma is also moved by Krishna's action, because he knew that Krishna was not going to kill him. He would let Arjuna do it. However, the act of drawing his sudarshana chakra to kill Bhishma helped Bhishma keep his promise to Duryodhana. Krishna, out of fondness for his devotee (even though he has committed sins like watching Draupadi be insulted), helps keep his promise. He also uses the opportunity to swing Arjuna's mood in the right direction. Arjuna and the rest of the Pandavas then go to Bhishma's camp and ask him for advice on killing him. The Shikhandi episode then ensues.   
(back to why Bhishma does not choose death at any other time) Dharma forbids suicide because God has given the soul an opportunity to take birth on earth, the saadhana bhoomi, where the soul can experience good and bad, choose to follow dharma or adharma, and progress through the stages in attaining its goal (salvation in moksha or eternal damnation in tamas). Just because a particular birth is too painful, the person should not decide to end their life, but actually look to take away the right learning from it.
Svarga (heaven) and Naraka (weaker than the eternal tamas) are temporary, and stints here may be meted out even to otherwise good or bad people for their material actions. 
As the Yugas progress, Krita Yuga gives way to Treta Yuga, to Dwapara Yuga, and finally to Kali Yuga. Kali Yuga is the period we are in currently, where dharma is teetering on its last leg (of 4). Even within this Yuga, the puranas describe a gradual weakening of dharma, a growth of individualism, a focus on material and physical (including sexual) indulgence, tyranny. Some accounts put the number of good (Saatvik) souls taking birth in the Kali Yuga at 2 crores (10 million).
The Bhagavata Purana (or just Bhagavata)  describes Krishna telling Ganga to stay on earth for 5000 years of Kali Yuga, to allow people (good and bad) to wash away their sins in her. (Most of our calendars indicate that we are 5100+ years into Kali Yuga, which must be wrong in some way.) For another 5000 years, His devotees (Saatvika) would be present on earth. Given the constant weakening of dharma, the number of Saatvikas must also be concentrated in earlier periods, with the last centuries of this 10,000 year period essentially being the time before which the flood gates of Kali open before the remainder of the 422,000 years of Kali Yuga play out. At the end of Kali Yuga, people are described to be tiny, with no chaste man or woman on earth, and only poisonous food and water. 
Several puranas also describe Kalki avatara as being set to occur towards the end of Kali Yuga (so people claiming to be Kalki avatara can stop the nonsense). Vishnu would be born to Vishnu Yasha, an incarnation of Swayambhuva Manu (who also incarnated twice before as the fathers of Rama and Krishna), and he then goes on to destroy the world before setting Krita Yuga in motion again.
I wonder how a good man such as Vishnu Yasha could still remain more than 4000 centuries from now; especially when Krishna tells Ganga that the last of his devotees will depart the earth before 10,000 years of Kali Yuga. If the Lord if set to be born to him, he must be of a pure lineage with chastity at any point never in question. More on this later.