Hinduism - too fine to be defined

The word "Hindu" came into vogue from the word "Sindhu" as the river at the north-western borders of India was called. While the land of the Indian sub-continent was called by the natives as Bharath, the Persians called the people living by and beyond the river after the name of the river, which was pronounced by them as "Hindu" and later as Indus by the Europeans and India by British. Thus by Hindu was denoted the people living in a particular geographical area irrespective of their religion. The word Hindu does not exist in the Vedas, though some latter scriptures have the word. Today the word Hindu has come to mean a particular religious culture. It is interesting that RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), founded 85 years ago and considered to be India's largest Hindu organization, uses the word Hindu in its geographical context to denote Indian nationalism. However, VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad), another large Hindu organization, uses the word Hindu to denote all religions born in India. There is also the word "Hindutva", used largely but not exclusively in politics, to denote the essence of Hinduism, which is stated by its proponents as the principle of "live and let live". This principle ensured that for many millennia the inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent did not need a word to identify themselves religiously, except for calling the religions themselves as elucidation of Sanatana Dharma or Eternal Law, because all religious expressions were accepted as the common heritage of everyone living in the ancient land of India. It was with the arrival of Islamic armies in India in the 8th century and more specifically the European traders in the 16th century that the word Hindu got to mean a religious group.

As to what makes a person Hindu in the religious sense, it is difficult to say because it has been famously said that what is true in Hinduism, its opposite is also true. Nevertheless three key words run through entire Hinduism - they are Dharma, Yoga and Karma. Anyone whose life has been touched by the understanding of at least these three words can be said to be a practising Hindu.

RSS must not transform itself into a mere NGO

It must be appreciated that Hindus have taken to terror (if they have actually done so) only because the terrorist activities of Pakistani sponsored Muslim organizations in India are going on unabated. The Congress and Marxist governments have treated Muslim terrorists with kid gloves (no to POTA so as not to hurt Muslim sentiments) and the consequence has been the development of a Hindu psyche to protect the nation on the principle of "Ushnam Ushname Shanti". It is incumbent, under the circumstances, for the RSS to be sympathetic to "Hindu terrorists". If we are more interested in "respectability", we shall transform the largest, most dynamic, committed and idealistic Hindu organization in the world to a mere NGO. Our war of Independence is not over yet. We still need Bhagat Singhs and Subhash Chandra Boses. Only the RSS can continue producing them.

Women inferior in Hinduism?

One thing must be understood about Hindu religious culture - it is not scripture centered unlike, say, the Abrahamic religious culture. The highest of Hinduism's teaching is to discover the divinity within through the guide of a self-realised guru, not to prostrate to a God without through a road-map laid out in a scripture. If Hindu scriptures contain expressions where women would seem to be denigrated, it would be equally true that the same scriptures would also contain expressions equating women with divinity. The conclusion invariably drawn by Hindus is not that the scriptures are self-contradictory, but they have to be read in their contexts. The reader of the scriptures is expected to be a person with discriminatory capacities (discriminate as in the capacity to know the relative value of things and not as in "being unfair"). Therefore trying to establish that women have an inferior position in Hindu culture by quoting a few verses out of context flies in the face of the most obvious fact of Hinduism - that it expresses God not just as a male symbol as do the Abrahamic religions but also as a female.

Stray thoughts on the hanging of Kasab.

It is said that punishment of a criminal, particularly if the punishment is death penalty, is not as much to deter the criminal as to deter potential criminals. The hanging of Kasab would not bring back the lives he killed. It would only avenge the loved ones of the victims. It could be argued that vengeance is not a noble trait and assuaging it would only create a society of vengeance. If the aim of punishment is to deter potential criminals, then punishment for crimes should be so gory that a would-be criminal would shudder at the very thought of getting caught for his crime and would give up his criminal tendencies. Ironically, the goriest punishments are those spelt out in the Shariat. Whether over a millennium of Shariat implementation has created a crime-free society anywhere is a moot question. If it has not, then should the punishments need to be even more gory for the desired effect? Maybe the solution could be to seek transformation of the criminal. But surely, for the transformation of criminals we would need a patient, perseverant and enlightened society. Do we have such a society? The goal of the best of religious masters has been to build such a society. Noble goal but with no widespread success so far. So as things stand, it is better to go in for quick-fix fire-fighting solutions. Kill the murderer and hope to stem the tide of evil clones.

Census on caste?

I think there should be no census on the caste configuration of Indian society. Instead of strengthening caste identities, caste should be sought to be made a thing of the past. Reservations on the basis of caste should be replaced by reservations on economic basis.

Is God incapable of unconditional love?

Love, to be truly love, must be unconditional. God loves you is what most religions say. But such religions also seem to be saying God loves you but you have to do such and such a thing or behave in such and such a way if you want God to continue loving you. Can God be capable of conditional love? God would not be God if His love was conditional. In the Bible it is said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." JOHN 3:16. "So loved" yet conditional. I shall love provided you believe, God seems to be saying. In the Quran it is said, “Say (O Muhammad): ‘If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.’” (Qur’an 3:31). Very clearly, it says that if you love Allah you have to follow his messenger Mohammad and only then will Allah continue to love you. Conditional love again. I think it is a suspect God who needs something in return for His love. It would seem that such Gods suffer from a sense of lack as ordinary men do, who were probably, in the first place, the creators of such scheming Gods. Maybe this is inevitable (the conditioning of love) in religions which separate God from His creation.

Beware - the duality trap

The root cause of all our problems is that we, the human race, have succumbed throughout history to a conditioning of the like-dislike dichotomy. This has led the human mind to be always in conflict with itself in striving ever to be in a certain mode – the mode of, shall we say, comfort. Anything that causes us discomfort in any way we fight against. Such divisiveness has become a human trait incorporated in our very genes. The entire divide that causes all men to suffer from schizophrenia to some degree or other has had, ironically, a solution available with man right from the ancient days – except that only the most perceptive of men and women alone accessed and profited from this ancient wisdom, well known as the advaita vision. Advaita means non-duality and therefore it can be said that man’s problem is the problem of duality.

Enemies of Islam?

[I wrote the following in reply to a Muslim who wrote on "Enemies of Islam".]

You classify Hindu fundamentalists and Indian nationalists among the enemies of Islam. While I might classify myself as a Hindu, I am not a Hindu fundamentalist and I do not see the possibility of any Hindu being a fundamentalist because Hinduism does not restrict itself to any fundamentals of belief. In fact, belief itself is not sine-qua-non in Hinduism. Of course, this does not mean that there are no Hindus who hate Muslims or Islam. To love and hate is human nature and there is no saying who at what time and for how long would be in the grip of one or the other of the love-hate dichotomy, whatever may be the reason or circumstance.

However, your classifying Indian nationalists among the enemies of Islam is an erroneous classification because there are innumerable pious Muslims in India who would consider themselves Indian nationalists and be ready to give their lives for India over and above anything. Therefore I think your thesis is flawed in its classifications.

Islam, as it has come to be in history, is one of mankind's most pervasive, enduring and colourful phenomena. A Muslim has no reason to be perturbed about their "enemies". As the Arabic saying goes, "Let the dogs bark, the caravan goes on." Nevertheless, nothing can remain static except pieces in museums. Therefore Islam, a living, dynamic religion hardly heading for the museums, will also change in the course of time - not change by editing of the Quran, but change by the priorities of its followers in the wax and wane of history - as with the followers of all religions. For example, war is slowly but surely becoming redundant and the world, as it is evolving, is headed for a more harmonious living together. Muslims, as all others, will stress those aspects of the Quran or other scriptures which stress on harmonious living of all peoples and any call to war mentioned in the Quran or other scriptures would be explained away as only pertaining to certain conditions which may not be existing any longer and therefore not a priority in the age of harmony. Can it be otherwise?

Women's reservation - psychological benefits

Reservations may not be required in an ideal situation, just like hospitals might not be required in an ideal situation where everyone is healthy. But we have to take into account reality and the more hospitals the better would society be. Similarly, reservation is not a concept that has come out of vacuum. There is something like history and histories largely have predictable trajectories. However, it is man's experience that the trajectory of history, whether medical or social, can be changed. Our history says that certain sections of society were oppressed in certain ways. Reservation was suggested as a way of leveling the playing field. 60 years of experimentation in caste-based social reservations may not have produced ideal results and may have often produced counter-productive results. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a psychological break-through was achieved and once-oppressed communities have now the confidence to stake their claim in the sunlight of equality. Facts and figures can almost prove or disprove anything. But the psychological benefits, often intangible but real nevertheless, are difficult to quantity. Women's reservation is an idea whose time has come or even come late in the Indian context. Let us have it. Let us support its passage in Parliament and Assemblies and see it as law. Only, we must also ensure that the law would provide for any irregularities and ambiguities to be corrected in the due course of the Bill’s existence in the statute books.

Swami Nithyananda redeems himself.

If the first video of Swami Nithyananda purportedly having sex was shocking, the second video now showing on the net is even more shocking - I think it is a masterly evidence, released by the Swamiji himself, of his claim that the first video was morphed. This is exactly what the second video proves. There is no sex at all here. Massaging yes, but no sex. And massaging only of Swamiji’s face, shoulders, back and chest. The only question now is whether the Swamiji should have allowed a woman to even touch him, that too in his bedroom. This apart, the woman doing the massaging came through as a trained, disciplined and efficient professional nurse. Maybe she is a disciple - but then she could well have been a sister or mother or daughter, certainly not a sexual paramour.

Who released the second video? Certainly not the folks who released the first video. Why would anyone who wanted the Swamiji’s name tarnished release a video which does not incriminate the Swamiji in any way? Therefore it is obvious that it was released under the instructions of the Swamiji himself. This also reveals that Swamiji had a CCTV installed in his bedroom as a security measure and it was from these genuine tapes that the scoundrel of a driver got professionals to morph and "expose" the Swamiji. Now I understand why the Swamiji is silent about sex in the video - he feels it is absolutely below his dignity to talk about surreptitious sex. With the release of the second tape, he has let all critiques and the public in general do the talking to clear his name.

Now what is left is for the Swamiji is to bring hefty criminal charges against all those who sought to vilify him. He owes it to the Hindu society - for the real purpose of the vilifiers was to vilify Hinduism itself.

Comment on blog "Mind of a mystic" by Dr. R. Murali Krishna

I felt the video was a fake one because if the intention was to produce a sting, the lights would not have been switched off before the supposed act. So the idea was to show as little of swamiji's body as possible so that the look-alike is not compromised. The other thing is there was no audio to go with the video, which is unlikely for a sting operation. Therefore the whole exercise was not through a hidden CCTV but with a directed camera and look-alikes. There are many other apparent flaws to conclude that the video is fake, which I have elaborated in my blog at "www.kaikulath.blogspot.com".

However, swamiji’s first video statement post the airing of the suspect CD did come as a disappointment. Why is swamiji unable to simply say that he has never had sex with anyone? Why is he asking for time to collect evidence against the falsity of the charges? Swamiji’s unambiguous statement that he has never had sex would leave the onus to prove otherwise to others. If sex is not alien to swamji’s life, then he should have in his teachings glorified it. In the absence of swamiji’s glorification of sex in his teachings, it was understood that swamiji neither had anything to do with sex nor wanted, at least his direct disciples, to have anything to do with it. Therefore the swamiji getting caught, if true, in the midst of sex is a sure call for him to abdicate his role as a traditional Hindu Sanyasi. For Swami Nithyananda at least, given the image he was cultivating, sexual and spiritual life cannot cohabitate.

And why was swamiji speaking from a camouflaged location? It seemed unbecoming of a fearless swamiji. I, as millions of others, am waiting for swamiji to speak again to the public at large from an open forum and clear all misgivings once and for all. What makes spiritual persons worship-worthy is that they live what they teach, unlike say a scholar, whose life need not necessarily be that transparent.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3304750128448536575&postID=7006984297097257822&page=1&token=1268241215227_AIe9_BFYG93FtBPs_4amXcakK6pEuaSkO2RfQrz9qLowj5BQScoaiXrPMmQICKmXHAgaEjaNduBLFVEMNIg_cQ0uE08y-KlWw8WdH4pm2uhz-gvLVwC3qub3glA6PZt_zB988mf1BZ4DoV9SmyZX7yp7ffxZbyBgqWCJhyjYfBC8GiaOU5bfZaWjo0HU58vnBSigu74Q5TAk4gPDq-bIvmyP6_z3kXkxLruco-Yjarx9xkz7xlCKaeM

Swami Nithyananda's statement

Swami Nithyananda has issued a statement subsequent to the airing of the scandalous CD. My comment:

The swami's statement is a disappointment, coming as it does after so many days. What evidence is he waiting for to establish the falsity of the charges against him? And why is he speaking from an undisclosed location, even camouflaging his background in the video statement - almost like what the terrorists do? All he has to do is to simply say that he has not had sex with anyone. If he is not able to state this directly and unambiguously, he will always be suspected of trying to escape the charges on technical grounds. I hope the detailed explanation he has promised will salvage his image.

Swami Nithyananda Paramahamsa and the fake sex video

The video showing Swami in compromising acts is not genuine because:

1. At one point the Swamiji (look alike) sports moustache.

2. From some angles the look-alike does not look like Swami.

3. If it was a sting operation to expose the Swami, and the actress was part of the plot, why was the light switched off at the crucial moment? The whole purpose of the sting operation would have been to expose the Swamiji in the act of sexual intercourse. Why was this act not videographed? Because videographing the sexual act would have exposed Swami’s full body and it would have become clear that it was not the Swami? It seems that the plan was to show as little of the Swami’s body as possible so that the look-alike was not exposed.

4. If the sting operation was carried out without the knowledge of the actress, the movement of the actress sliding up the Swamiji to get water and swami's reaction looks contrived. This indicates that both the Swami and the actress roles were played by look-alikes.

5. Two different girls were involved on two different days, which appears to have been previous night and following morning. A fixed CCTV video would have shown the two girls simultaneously. This proves the videography was carried out with look-alikes who were suitably directed – not by a fixed CCTV from a hidden place.

6. It appears that the Swami got up the second day in the morning, because his yawn is a give away. Then why was the light switched off after some point even in the morning? This also proves that the characters involved are all look-alikes.

7. Why is the Swami looking so intently at the TV even when the actress was massaging his legs and more? Apparently he was waiting for his cue from the director to begin playing the part. If it was the Swami, the reaction to the actress massaging him would have looked natural.

8. If technology to produce a clear video was used, why was the conversation not caught? Because the look-alikes could not imitate the true voices?

Bloody Indian? Shah Rukh Khan’s interview with Berkha Dutt on Sunday 7th August 2010.

http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1199720

In the 19th minute of the interview, in the context of Farid Zakariah mentioning the Newsweek poll which said Shah Rukh Khan is among the 50 most powerful people in the world, he, Shah Rukh Khan turns modest about his power and says that a movie star can hardly be a powerful person because so many things about a movie are in others’ hands. He further adds, “If I was not in such a vulnerable position of being a movie star, I am going to show power. I am a thinking bloody Indian. I will show power then.”

Was Shah Rukh Khan displaying his secular license in using the phrase “bloody Indian”? Is it not akin to M.F.Hussain displaying his secular license in drawing a nude Saraswati? Would Hussain have drawn a nude Ayesha or Shah Rukh Khan have so casually said “bloody Islam”?

Some food for thought?