A View From My Gallery

Janmashtmi

2012-08-10T22:16:00.001+05:30

And what a better day to talk about the great work Srimad Bhagwadgita.

And from Srimad Bhagwadgita lets talk about its most famous shloka:

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोस्त्वकर्मणि॥

— भगवद्गीता २-४७

karmaṇyevādhikāraste mā phaleṣu kadacana|
mā karmaphalaheturbhūrmā te saṅgostvakarmaṇi|| 2-47

It is one of my favourite quotes. Its most common translation is “karma kiye ja phal ki ichchha mat kar re insan….”. The question that comes to mind is, “is it really important, rather possible to work without thinking about the results or the consequences thereof?” What is the motivation to work then? Well like almost all of Srimad Bhagwadgita’s shlokas this one also is not a mere two liner. It is a complete book in itself. A thesis can be written on this shloka itself. Its import is very deep. Swami Ranganathananda of Advaita Ashram has translated the shloka in English as, “Your right is to work only; but never to the fruits thereof. May you not be motivated by the fruits of actions; nor let your attachment be towards inaction… akarmani…”

It has four catch words here. Work, Fruit, Motive and Inaction. What this shloka infact says is, or what I understand of it is-- going backwards through the shloka—you should not be attracted towards, or be interested in inaction… you must act as per your duty, as per your religious beliefs, as per your dharma, as per your position. You must act. There should not be inaction.

Next it says is—or going backwards it says—a right to the fruits of action should not be your motivation to work. And this is very important. We should work with our best understanding of our rights and duties but we should not be motivated by the fruits of this work alone. We may actually not have the full understanding as to which work will ultimately produce what type of fruit. The final fruit may or may not belong to the exact type of work executed by us. Thus making that fruits the basis of our work is not always practical and is fraught with danger. Thus apart from spiritual aspect this practical aspect is also one of the reasons why we should not be motivated by the fruits.

Next it says is that your right is to work only and not to its fruits. Since we cannot actually decide the real ‘fruit’ of our work we shall not ask for it by right. Our exact selection of fruit might or might not be as our work. Moreover the word right here is more of a ‘right to choose’ than a ‘right to claim’. We can exert our rights, our powers, our discretion to choose our work and not the fruits thereof. Fruits shall follow automatically based on our work. We shall deliberate on the type of work we can undertake, the right and wrongs involved, our duty, our position and all that. We shall decide the work-exert our right to choose the work and then do it. The fruits will follow. We cannot exert our right to fruit anymore. We can not chose the fruit now. We can change the character and effect of this fruit, this result, subsequently by our other action but we can not chose our fruit here. We have no right to chose a particular fruit with or without doing a work. We do the work or don't do it... or do it badly, the result, the fruit shall follow. Having done the work now we can't stop the fruit. But one thing is sure, one or many works together may result in many or one fruit but it will always be commensurate with the quality and quantity, or the character of our work. Satvik work- good fruit, Rajsik work- slightly less good and Tamsik work- or paap and you get worst type of fruit. May even be in the shape of some punishment. But as we had ourselves chosen the work, we should accept all the fruits happily. It is only as per our work and we had all the liberty to chose the quality of our work. We had to chose our discretion properly. A work may be sattvik for one and rajsik for another. Or the work may be rajsik for both but one in his wisdom may consider it as sattvik and the other as rajsik, or might even consider it as tamasik. The first one, as such, might chose in his discretion to undertake that work as saatvik but the other might not touch it thinking it to rajasik or tamasik. The result would still be as per rajasik only because the work basically is rajasik only and he mistook it as satvik.

So all that this shlok says is that you use your discretion to chose the type of work you should undertake. Not to do any work, or inaction is not a good option. So work.... and chose the type of work and then leave the results or the fruits to follow. Fruits will follow per your work. The basic character of that work should be your motivation not its result. Selection pf fruit in the advance may, at times, result in faulty selection or execution of work. And that will, in turn, result in a different type of fruit than anticipated. So in this case one will first waste his right to chose his work and then lose the fruit also which might not be as per his perception. Thus in plain simple words we must use all our authority, right, power and discretion in selecting the right work and then should wait for the results to follow, one may or may not recognise or relate the fruit or exact result to his respective work but one is bound to get the fruit as per his work committed now or sometime earlier in the past. The result could be effect of a single work or result of cumulative work.... but he has control over his work only and shall not try to control the result over which one doesn't have much control.

facebook discussion: On Rebirth.

2012-07-19T22:05:00.000+05:30

A good topic for discussion. Rebirth. The fact that a few religions don't believe in it whereas a few others believe shows that the answer is not that easy. It is not like 2+2 which can be proved beyond doubt for everyone to follow. It is slightly different.

It is a matter of indepth study and personal understanding. A study of old scriptures leaves no doubts about the concept of rebirth.

Though most of the individual instances of rebirth can be explained para-psychologically, and re-incarnation has not been conclusively proved by western science so far; yet no theory, or experiment or religion has disproved rebirth or re-incarnation.

Science has not been able to prove rebirth but logic shows there has to be something like re-incarnation to explain a whole lot of phenomenon in this world. Why this disparity? Why a child is born with a silver spoon and other on a heap of garbage as a destitute?
What happens to a sinner? Why should we do good? When will be the day of judgement?..... a lot of such questions are there which can not be satisfactorily answered without the concept of rebirth.

Thanks for bringing up the topic. It would be interesting to discuss the topic.

18 July 2012

facebook discussion: What is our real nationalism?

2012-05-28T15:45:00.000+05:30

I feel it is all about sense of belongingness. A matter of one's identity. And it starts from our family itself. If we can love our family and feel proud of it then only can we understand and respect other families. In a match, contest or other comparison between two families we have to identify with our family and support it by all means. Same stands for our city. In yesterday's match between DD and CSK I had to feel one with my team DD, even in a crushing defeat in the hands of CSK. I might appreciate a player or two from CSK but can't support a team against DD.

So on and so forth until we reach the NATION. Here again being an Indian I can not dream of not feeling one with India. I might appreciate a thing or two about other nations but it has to be India on top for me. When I am true to myself, to my family, to my Country then only can I respect the feelings of others who are true to themselves, true to their family and true to their nation. It does not matter whether one is from New Delhi, Nowshera, New Castle or New York. One has to be committed to his respective country India, Pakistan, England or America in this case. I see no conflict upto this point. As an Indian I can not love Pakistan, England or America over my country and at the same time do not expect someone from these countries loving India over their own countries. All are true nationalists in the real form.

The problem starts if I love my family but instead of respecting my neighbour's family I HATE that family. That is bad. It would be bad if I start hating CSK and try to ensure their defeat in the match verses DD through sabotage, match-fixing or any other foul means. Similarly it would be bad if from the love for my country I conclude that now i have to hate all other nations and all those belonging to or supporting those 'other' nations. If for a moment I have this feeling it is bad. Then I am not being a principled, rationalist person. How can I assume that my nationalism is superior to my counterpart's from Pakistan, England or America. I must respect him and respect his nationalism as long as he is not working against my nation. Any supporter of Pakistan, England or America or any other country, or CSK for that matter, is welcome as long as he does not hate India or DD in this case. We can still be great friends, great admirers of each other even if we are from two different countries, or two different states or two different families. We just have to respect each other, respect each other's feelings, respect each other's loyalties and not hate each other's family, state or nation. There is a difference between 'not supporting' and 'hating'. I can not support Pakistan, England or America in a match against India but at the same time I should not hate these countries for any reason.

And this is our real nationalism. To respect Pakistan while being committed and loyal to India and conversely to respect India while remaining committed and loyal to Pakistan. If from nationalism one understands that it means annihilation of all other nationalities then he has not understood the concept of nationalism and such person is a real threat to humanity. For once he has 'annihilated' all other nations, he will turn to his province verses others and annihilate all other provinces. And then to his city, and finally to his family and will annihilate all other families. This is a defeatist mentality. It will destroy humanity. A true nationalist will understand and respect other's nationality and will love, not hate, others.

Unfortunately a few have not understood the concept of nationality in the real context and have adopted the destructive path of opposing and hating other nations. That has brought misery to real peace loving dwellers of subcontinent without their fault. All such misguided persons need to be resisted and guided to shun this hatred for other nations and nationalities. Therein lies the key to survival and prosperity of us all. Not only in this subcontinent, but in the world itself.
26 May 2012

As far as nationalism goes I strongly believe, from my personal experience as well, that two true nationalists, even from two different countries, will always like and respect each other. Only pseudo-nationalists fight with each other or harm others. In my short career I have had opportunity to interact with nationals of around a dozen different countries and I have found that more they loved their own countries more they were eager to know about other countries and more they seemed to be appreciative of other's culture.

Only a few die-hard types were unjustifiably critical of other nations and did not gel with others. But then these die-hards were always in a minority and they were also found using foul language about other institutions of their own country. These are what we call pseudo-nationalists. They just do not have clear concepts about nationalism.

True nationalist always seem to be saying that my mother is the best and your mother also is the best. As I can not abuse my mother I can not abuse your mother too. He respects other's sentiments also as he has himself experienced those feelings. Anyone saying bad words about other's mother/country has not really loved his own mother/country.
27 May 2012

fbd: क्या उपासना,तपस्या और भक्ति के रूप और क्रिया अलग अलग हैं?

2012-04-25T02:49:00.000+05:30

मेरे विचार से किसी भी चीज़ में, व्यक्ति में, वस्तु में विश्वास रखना, भरोसा रखना भक्ति है. इसका पालन हम जिंदगी में सामान्य रहते हुए भी कर सकते हैं.
उपासना एक तरीका है जिसमे भक्ति है, श्रद्धा है उसके और समीप जाने का. उपासना प्रतिदिन कुछ समय के लिए हो सकती है. इसमें अपने आराध्य का ध्यान कर उसके और समीप जाने का प्रयास होता है. भक्ति और उपासना में फर्क ये है कि भक्ति में प्रेम है, समर्पण है, लगन है किन्तु कोई चाह नहीं है जबकि उपासना में अपने प्रिय को पाने कि चाह लेकर एक क्रिया करना है. भक्ति एक भाव है उपासना एक क्रिया है.
और तपस्या अपना उद्देश्य पूरा करने के लिए किया गया अथक प्रयास है. इसमें निरंतरता व कुछ शारीरिक श्रम, कष्ट निहित है. ये मात्र एक सिमित समय के लिए अपनी इच्छा पूरी होने तक के लिए किया गया एक अथक परिश्रम, एक प्रयास है. वो उद्देश्य पूरा होने पर या वो इच्छा पूरी होने पर तपस्या पूर्ण हो जाती है तथा और तपस्या की जरूरत नहीं रह जाती. ये किसी अच्छी भावना से भी हो सकती है और बुरी भावना से भी.
इन तीनों से मैं यही समझता हूँ.

24 April 2012

facebook discussion: '2011 Revision of the World Urbanisation Prospects Report’

2012-04-05T00:41:00.000+05:30

संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की '2011 Revision of the World Urbanisation Prospects’ रिपोर्ट के अनुसार अगले चार दशकों में भारत कुल 497 million यानि तक़रीबन 50 करोड़ की आबादी शहरी आबादी में और जोड़ेगा. इसी दौरान चीन कुल 341 million यानि 34 करोड़ की आबादी शहरी आबादी में जोड़ेगा.
अगर ये रिपोर्ट सही निकलती है तो अगले 40 सालों में इसका असर भारत की प्रगति व अर्थव्यवस्था पर क्या पड़ सकता है? अच्छा या बुरा?
April 6 2012
I see two aspects here. One is increasing population and second is movement of people from villages to metros or other cities. And I feel this second aspect is more important. We must take steps to develop infrastructure in villages so that people continue to stay there are do not shift to cities. Ultimately we will have to develop our villages for a balanced growth and sooner we start it better it is.
April 8 2012

शिक्षा, चिकित्सा, परिवहन, मनोरंजन सब तरह से गाँव पिछड़ रहे हैं तभी जनता शहरों की और जाती है.
April 9 2012

facebook discussion: WHAT IS MOKSH (SALVATION) ? IS IT A REALITY OR A FARCE ?

2012-03-27T22:40:00.000+05:30

मोक्ष का मतलब है छुटकारा, मुक्ति. इस जीवन चक्र से, जन्म और मृत्यु के फेरों से. जन्म और मृत्यु का ये सिलसिला अगर reality है तो फिर मोक्ष भी reality है.
18 March 2012

वैसे भाई भी अपनी जगह सही हैं कि इसे समझना इतना आसान नहीं है लेकिन फिर भी इक शुरुआत तो करनी ही होगी. चलिए यहीं से इस concept को समझने की इक शुरुआत करते हैं.
18 March 2012

भाई काफी हद तक सही हैं कि ब्राह्मणों ने वेदों के अच्छे उपदेशों को दूसरों तक जाने से रोका. असल में उन्होंने वेदों से अलग स्मृतियों और पुराणों के नाम से रचनाएँ लिखीं और उन्हें ही सच्चा ज्ञान कह कर लोगों को बरगलाना शुरू किया.
और दुर्भाग्यवश वे सफल भी हुए.
लेकिन मोक्ष, सिद्धि, renunciation, the highest perfect stage वगैरह के concept श्रीमद भगवद्गीता में भी हैं. ब्राह्मणों ने इन्हें बाद में गलत interpret किया और इन्हें प्राप्त करने के गलत तरीकों का प्रसार किया. स्मृतियों और पुराणों से हट कर अगर हम देखें तो बहुत कुछ सही जानकारी मिलती है.
25 March 2012

अगर हम आध्यात्मिक खोज को इक पढाई की तरह लें तो मोक्ष कह सकते हैं कि अध्यात्म की PhD है. अध्यात्म की पढाई का आखरी पड़ाव है. और इसी उपमा में कई और जवाब भी छिपे हैं. हम सब इस पढाई की अलग अलग स्टेज पर हैं. पहली दूसरी यानि प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा, माध्
यमिक, उच्चतर, graduation, post-graduation, PhD वगैरह वगैरह. और यही वजह है की मोक्ष की हमारी परिभाषा और समझ भी अलग अलग होती है. और हमारे जवाब भी अलग होते हैं. मसलन अब अगर भाई Dr से कोई पूछे PhD के बारे में तो उनका जवाब पहली कक्षा के बच्चे के लिए अलग होगा और छठी कक्षा के लिए अलग और इक graduation कर रहे छात्र के लिए अलग. सबके लिए इक जवाब नहीं हो सकता. ना ही सबको इक जैसा समझ आएगा.

वही बात मोक्ष के बारे में है. आध्यात्मिक अध्ययन के अपने स्तर के अनुरूप ही हम इस बात को समझ सकते हैं. हम में से अधिकतर प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा के स्तर पर हैं. कुछ माध्यमिक और उससे ऊपर तो विरले ही होंगे. और ऐसे में अगर कोई कहता है कि मैं मोक्ष नहीं चाहता तो इसमें आश्चर्य की बात नहीं है. पहली दूसरी कक्षा का विरला ही छात्र ये कह सकता है कि वो PhD करना चाहता है. अधिकतर तो PhD के विषय में उस वक्त कुछ नहीं कह सकते. और वैसे भी आपने अक्सर कईयों को कहते सुना होगा, बल्कि खुद भी कहा होगा कि बचपन कितना अच्छा था, हम बड़े नहीं होना चाहते.... हम भी अगर बच्चे होते..... यही बात अध्यात्म और मोक्ष की है. कहने को तो मोक्ष जीवन मरण के चक्कर से छुटकारा है पर पूरी तरह से इसे समझने के लिए पहले हमें अध्यात्म की प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा पूरी करनी होगी फिर माध्यमिक और फिर आगे. तभी हम इसे पूरी तरह समझ पायेंगे. और ये पोस्ट इस दिशा में इक अच्छा प्रयास है.
26 March 2012

facebook discussion: Insaan shadi kyon karta hai?

2012-03-14T15:12:00.000+05:30

इसमें 'इंसान' को हम तीन कैटेगरी में बाँट सकते हैं.
पहली में वो हैं जिनकी शादी उनके माँ-बाप ने कर दी. उनके माँ-बाप व रिश्तेदारों का मानना होता है कि हमने भुगता है तो तुम भी भुगतो. उन्हें बुरा लगता है (jealous you know) अगर समाज में कोई बिना शादी किये खुशी से रहना चाहता है.
दूसरी कैटेगरी में हैं वो जिन्होंने खुद अपने होशो हवास में अपनी शादी की. ये वो हैं जो दूसरों के अनुभवों से नहीं सीखते हर अनुभव खुद ग्रहण करते हैं. साथ ही उन्होंने ये मुहावरा भी नहीं पढ़ा होता कि 'दूर के ढ़ोल सुहावने होते हैं'
और तीसरी कैटेगरी में वो हैं जो ता-उम्र शादी नहीं करते. तो उनके बारे में यही कहा जा सकता है कि उनकी आँखें बचपन में ही खुल गयीं थी. वो पिछले जन्म में जरूर महात्मा बुद्ध थे.
बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामी......
21 February 2012

Recently I came across two explanations on the subject. One is from a commentary on 'Hinduism' by Dr. S Radhakrishnan. I quote:
"Ethical obedience is also a pathway to salvation. Hinduism desires that one's life should be regulated by the c
onception of duties or debts which one has to discharge. The debts are fourfold: ...............
(And the third is) To our ancestors. We repay these debts by having good progeny. The Hindu social code does not ask us to impose an unnatural order on the world. We discover the intentions of nature in the constitution of men and women and it is our duty to act agreeably to them. Marriage is not merely of bodies but of minds. It makes us richer, more human, more truly living, and becomes the cause of greater love, deeper tenderness, more perfect understanding. It is an achievement which requires discipline."

Now that 'kyon karta hai' has been explained, lets move on to the second explanation. And that is 'Aadmi shaadi kab karta hai?' This I have received through SMS from one of my friends.

शादी कब होती है?

-जब टाइम खराब चल रहा हो, राहू, केतू और शनि की दशा खराब हो, आपका मंगल कमजोर हो और देवी देवता मनोरंजन के मूड में हों.......
13 March 2012

fbd: The word “Sexy”- Is it fashionable or derogatory?

2012-03-12T18:01:00.000+05:30

The chairperson of National Commission for Women (NCW) Ms. Mamta Sharma's observation: “Don’t feel offended if someone says you are ‘Sexy’, Rather take it positively”.

I think it would not be proper to write off the opposition saying that this hue and cry is made by the shrewd or illiterate politicians for an illiterate and uncivilized electorate as some would have us believe. Rather it is the socially literate, culturally alive, sensitive and considerate family man who is feeling uncomfortable with this pseudo modernism being advocated by non other than the chairperson of National Commission for Women (NCW), Ms. Mamta Sharma herself.

And as for the meaning of the word 'Sexy', not any unreliable and un-acknowledged but the famous "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" defines it as:

"Definition of SEXY
1: sexually suggestive or stimulating : erotic"

It further lists 'bodacious', 'desirable', 'dishy', 'hot', 'luscious' and 'toothsome' as its synonyms.

Any family using the word 'sexy', with these connotations, as a 'positive complement' has really very different family values. And it is a matter of concern for any social person.

It is matter of cultural and social and family values and not that of literacy and modernity. It is neither socially nor grammatically correct to use 'sexy' as a complement for a decent lady, what to talk of one's own family members.

And see what are alternatives with us. We have a whole lot of words to use here like:
beautiful, attractive, beauteous, comely, cute, drop-dead, fair, fetching, good, good-looking, goodly, gorgeous, handsome, knockout, likely, lovely, lovesome, pretty, ravishing, seemly, sightly, stunning, taking, well-favored, aesthetic, bonny and our own sundar, khoobsurat, achchha etc....

The issue really deserves to be seen in its right perspective.
26 February 2012

Does one refute the meaning and synonyms given in "Merriam-Webster" Dictionary? There is no other explanation for the word.
26 February 2012

But without getting into semantics lets go for the spirit behind the word. Sexy is not by any means an alternative to beautiful. Sexy is merely sexually attractive. And that's not a good word to be used at all the places under all circumstances.
26 February 2012

Moreover my Hard Real World Oxford Dictionary defines the word sexy as:

sexy adj (-ier, -iest) (infml) 1 of or about sex: a sexy book/film, make sexy suggestions. 2 (a) causing sexual desire: you look very sexy in that outfit (b) feeling sexual desire: I stopped feeling sexy after having the baby.

Well I think Oxford has further clarified the issue.
26 February 2012

By "I say I need a sexy collection of bags" I would surely understand that its not beauty or aesthetics that is in speakers mind. Rather it is arousal of sensualities. Not always a healthy feeling.
26 February 2012

That's the point I am making. It is recently becoming a 'popular' word. But by whom? Why should we always discard family values in the name of 'new' or 'popular'.
26 February 2012

Shall we discard all dictionary meanings, social and family values just in the name of neo-moderns?
26 February 2012

We need to see this whole affair in its right perspective. Whom did Ms Mamta Sharma seemingly address when she made her by now famous comment?
Did she refer to,
(A) a neo-modern girl who feels elated on being addressed as 'sexy' or (B) to the girl who has faced eve-teasing or harassment in the hands of some goons who use the word 'sexy' to derive sadistic pleasure by making sexually explicit comments towards girls?
And is this comment meant only for the girl who is feeling harassed and embarrassed or it is also meant for the boy who is using this word to harass her?
Chances are the boy is not using the obscure second meaning of the word 'sexy'. If he is using it to harass girls then sure he means the first and widely accepted meaning of the word having sexual connotations.
Here is a very peculiar situation. The guy is using the dirty meaning of the word to harass the girl, the girl understands the dirty meaning and is complaining against the use of the word, but here is our Chairperson of NCW saying that both of them should get 'educated' and learn to speak English, and should know the other meaning of the word.... The boy should NOT use THIS innocuous word if he wants to harass girls and the girls should become,..... I don't know what...., and instead of complaining should feel proud of being addressed as sexy by a stranger.
Very unfortunate. It is not a matter of being 'educated' and well versed in the use of English language. It is about social values. I hope tomorrow she doesn't come up with same weird defence of other nasty words like 's****', 'm***' etc.
9 March 2012

One has mentioned how Lord Rama, Lakshamana or Hanumana used to describe Sitaji's beauty. But important is how they addressed her. And here lies the difference. Your words and the way you speak them make a lot of difference. None of them ever addressed Sita by any word which can be equated with the word 'sexy'.

Again, discussing sex is different from addressing someone as sexy.

Further you have added:
"Even the word “Pretty” is used in a very disgusting way to offend women. Just ask to those girls who face eve teasing. Meaning differs with the facts “when” “where” and “how” we use a word."

Under these circumstances is it correct on the part of a lady to tell all the girls that you don't feel bad about these words? Did she consider the plight of a girl who has faced eve teasing? Did she consider “when” “where” and “how's” of it?
She seems to have made her comment without giving it a proper thought. Without considering its impacy on the eve teasers and girls being teased.
But it is surprising that you accept that even 'Pretty' is used in a very disgusting way to offend women but you refuse to accept that the word 'SEXY' is also used in a very disgusting way to offend women.

Any way dear it was nice discussing the topic with you and some of your spirited friends on this post. Since you have already elaborated your points for the last time, it may also be considered my last comment on this post unless someone wants to discuss it further.
Thanks.
11 March 2012

facebook discussion: Spirituality and religion. Is there any diffrence?

2012-03-05T09:33:00.000+05:30

Spirituality is something very personal. Even when you are alone spirituality plays a leading role in your life.
But Religion (in that western sense) is relevant only if you are part of a society. It is important in public life only.
4 March 2012

facebook discussion: DOES GOD EXIST? OR IS IT JUST AN ILLUSION?

2012-03-05T09:01:00.000+05:30

Its a tricky but very old query. For centuries the debate is on. Whether God Exists or Its Just An Illusion?

I feel the answer can come from within only. Others can give you inputs but only you can answer this question.

I am reminded of a short story my mother told me years ago. Due to the space constraints I shall re-tell same in brief.

There was a small ship with 12 men. 6 believers in god and six die hard non-believers. During a journey through sea they encounterd a fiery sea-storm. The ship started to sink.

The six staunch believers started praying and asked others to join them telling it was the only way to save them. The six non-believers set out to steer the ship and exhorted others to throw their books and join them saying they will have to help themselves as there is no god. The six believers told them to fear god’s fury and refrain from making such comments.

The six non-believers started attempts to save their lives. They repaired the torn mast, held the broken poles, threw away water with their hands, held the steering firm in turbulent waters, kept on balancing the ship on rocking waves, etc etc. After a long struggle those six non-believers steered the ship to safety away from the storm with their courage, hard work and dedication whereas those six believers just kept on praying with increasing fervour.

What next?
As the ship reached shores safely, those six hard believers threw away their books and idols and lay down at the feet of the six who steered the ship to safety saying that they have seen the true saviour in them and no longer believe in the gods they worshipped earlier.

The other six silently closed their eyes, folded their hands and sat out in silent prayers. If they had not done what they did, the ship would have sunk without doubt. But they told others that all through their efforts they could feel that there was something beyond their powers and understanding which kept their spirits alive and made them do what they did and finally guided and helped them steer the ship safely through that storm. That moment onwards all six of them started believing in the god whose very presence they had experienced.

Whether god is there or not is all a matter of life’s experiences and exposures. All I can say is we should be open to all the ideas. Experiences make believers of non-believers and vice-versa. As I said earlier, the answer cannot be imposed, it has to come from within....
27 December 2011

‎It is with reference to two comments.
First: "at the end of the story u can see that those who used to blv in god become non-beleiver aisa kyu hua god me unka vishwass kyu dagmga gya???"
And Second: "प्रश्न पूछने में न संकोच करो, न उनके उत्तर ढूँढ़ने में आलस करो।"

Call it co-incidence or what... second comment is the answer to the query in the first comment. Those who used to believe in god earlier simply followed what they were told. They thought god is in their books or in their prayers or in their hymns.... they never asked a question and never tried to find an answer. They had no conviction and did not feel comfortable with their belief.
The other set of sailors probably did not find their answers earlier hence did not believe in god earlier. But their experience gave them the answers they sought and they started believing in god.
This answer can come through experience, discussion, self-study or even self-analysis.
29 December 2011

With due respects to the contributions of Mr Hawking, I beg to differ from his conclusion about god. God may or may not be there but Mr Hawking's logic is, simply weird if I may use the word.
Last year I had written a few lines on this topic in an open letter to Mr Hawking on my blog. I am attaching a link here:
http://rkbasatta.blogspot.com/2010/09/god-did-not-create-universe-says.html
3 January 2012

मुझे एक छोटी सी कहानी याद दिला दी जो कुछ समय पहले मेरी भांजी ने मुझे सुनाई थी. एक अविश्वासी (‘rational’ non-believer) वैज्ञानिक को एक बार किसी exhibition में बुलाया गया. वहाँ उन्होंने हमारे solar system का एक नमूना देखा. वो उससे काफी प्रभावित हुए. जब उन्होंने पूछा की इसे किसने बनाया है तो उन्हें बताया गया की इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया ये तो उनकी लैब में खुद-ब-खुद बन गया. वो वैज्ञानिक यह मानने के लिए तैयार नहीं था. उसने कहा की यह हमारे सोलर सिस्टम से इतना मिलता जुलता है कि वो ये बिलकुल नहीं मान सकता कि इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया है और ये खुद बन गया है. उसने फिर कहा कि इसे जरूर किसी ने बनाया है और वो उससे मिलना चाहता है.
तब उस exhibition के प्रायोजक ने उन scientist को confront किया और कहा कि यह एक छोटा सा नमूना है जो हमारे सोलर सिस्टम जैसा लगता है मगर उसके मुकाबले में कुछ भी नहीं है पर आप यह मानने के लिए तैयार नहीं हैं कि इसे किसी ने नहीं बनाया और आप अनुरोध कर रहे हैं कि इसके बनाने वाले से आपको मिलाया जाये. दूसरी तरफ आप लगातार यह हठ कर रहे हैं कि हमारा असली सोलर सिस्टम, जो कि इस नमूने से कहीं बड़ा, मजबूत और complex है, किसी ने नहीं बनाया और वह खुद बन गया..... क्या इन दोनों बातों में विरोधाभास नहीं है?.......

खैर यह तो एक कहानी है और इसी प्रकार दोनों तरफ से कहानियां बनायीं व सुनाई जा सकती हैं. इस कहानी में भी फिर उस वैज्ञानिक ने क्या जवाब दिया यह नहीं पता..... लेकिन हाँ यह बिलकुल सही है कि किसी को मानने या नकारने में हमें सिर्फ मतों, भावनाओं व अधूरे ज्ञान से हट कर चिंतन, अध्ययन व मंथन से किसी निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचना होगा.
5 January 2012

मैं खुद इस सवाल का definite answer ढूँढ रहा हूँ.

मेरी और scientific approach में अंतर यह है कि science यह लेकर कर चलती है कि जब तक यह सिद्ध न हो जाए माना न जाये जबकी मैं कुछ सवालों के probable जवाब लेकर चल रहा हूँ की जब तक वे dissaprove न हो जाएँ उन्हें छोड़ा न जाए.
Scientists अपनी रिसर्च के आधार पर नहीं बल्कि अब तक की अपनी पहुँच के आधार पर ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को नकारते हैं. अपने अभी तक के ज्ञान से वे ईश्वर को नहीं सिद्ध कर पाए हैं इस लिए नकारते हैं जबकि असलियत में ये उनका नकारना नहीं है बल्कि वे अभी न तो prove कर पाए हैं न dis-approve. They are merely in a state of denial.

ईश्वर है या नहीं ये अलग बात है मगर ये reasoning कि क्योंकि science अभी तक ईश्वर के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध नहीं कर पायी है तो हम ये मान लें कि ईश्वर नहीं है, मैं एक मजबूत आधार नहीं मानता. आज से कुछ समय पहले तक हम बहुत कुछ नहीं जानते थे मगर वे सब थे. किसी ने x-ray ढूँढी तो हम जानने लगे... किसी ने ultravoilet rays ढूँढी तो हमें पता चला.... मगर ये x-rays, ultravoilet rays, infrared rays ये तो सदा से रही होंगी... इस तरह से आग की खोज के बाद से अब तक हर एक चीज़ धीरे धीरे ‘science & scientists’ की समझ व पहचान में आई पर थी तो वे सदा से. तो इस लिए इस logic को कि अभी तक scientifically जो बात सिद्ध नहीं हुई है हमें उसे नहीं मानना चाहिए मैं सही नहीं समझता.
या तो science उसे सिद्ध करे या उसका न होना सिद्ध करे, सिर्फ नकारना प्रयाप्त नहीं है.

दूसरे अगर हम logic की ही बात करें तो logically ‘God’ के अस्तित्व को deny बेशक करते हों पर disapprove तो logic नहीं कर पाई है.

हमारे ऋषि मुनियों ने केवल विश्वास के भरोसे ही भगवान को नहीं माना है. उन्होंने सवाल उठाया, चिंतन किया, अध्ययन किया, मंथन किया, logic के सामने परखा, सभी practical inputs और अनुभवों का समावेश किया और तब उन निष्कर्षों पर पहुंचे.
हमें भी उस अवस्था से गुजरना है तभी हमारा संकल्प मजबूत होगा. वर्ना सिर्फ विश्वास या सिर्फ अप्रयाप्त scientific ज्ञान के आधार पर हम चाहे ‘हाँ’ कहें या ‘ना’, हमारे विचारों में वो conviction नहीं होगी.
5 January 2012

Theory of Big Bang neither affirms nor denies the presence of God. There is nothing in it against basic concept of God as explained in Shruties. There are various other theories about creation of universe propounded in some later scriptures and smritis including Quran and Bible. Theory of Big Bang goes against these speculative theories but it neither questions nor answers the basic query as to the existence of God, Bhagwan, Parmeshwar etc.

Professor Hawking has given his idea: "इस दुनियां का निर्माण करने का कारण ईस्वर नहीं ,बल्कि भौतिक प्रक्रिया ही हैं ,क्योंकि प्रयोगों से भौतिक पदार्थ, जैविक पदार्थों में बदले जा सकते हैं". But Professor Hawking is mum on the basic question as to WHO started or WHO is controlling that bhoutic prakriya which converts physical bodies into biological bodies.

I had put this question before Professor Hawking in my open letter. I am reproducing the concluding part of that letter here:

"Reading your statement as a whole, ‘God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics’, I get an idea as if you are saying , “Mom did not cook the meal and the dinner on my table was an inevitable consequence of the effect of heat on raw food…..”. How true. How true Mr. Hawking, yet how incomplete and how immature, and how insensitive. Purely from the periscope of your so called science yes, it is physics, chemistry or biology at work. Mom’s preparation of food and to put it in oven was an inevitable consequence of the laws of chemistry working in her brain releasing those chemicals at the right time to make her prepare the meal mechanically for her biological offspring. It is as simple in your view.

"However, sir I assure you there is a lot more to it than mere chemistry and physics. We would be well advised not to speak of that unless we understand that fully. If we ignore this basic thing I don’t think we can do our mom or the god any harm but we sure stand to lose our own reputation and credibility.

"Please think about it.

"Sincerely,
A believer beyond physics, chemistry and biology."
5 January 2012

My comments or my views are never against science or the scientists. My objection is to their suppositions on subjects and issues beyond their reach. They are doing an experiment and I am fully with them on this issue. I was as curious as any to know the results of those highly ambitious CERN experiments, LHC et al… My objection is not to their experiments or their theory of Big Bang…. But to their conclusion that success of their theory in any way dis-proves God.

I have full respect for Theoretical Physicist Stephen Hawking as far as his contributions to science are concerned and read his articles with interest but when he dabbles on issues beyond Physics I want him to be a little careful. When he says that the conclusion of his theory is that there is no God he sounds like someone making tea and then saying that preparation of tea proves a game of cricket does not exist. Or like Shahrukh Khan saying that Gavaskar knows nothing about T20 Cricket. He is not conducting experiments to prove or disprove existence of God then how he draws this conclusion from his experiments that there is no God. It is really what surprises me. And this is the reason I question his concepts about God. I am sorry if it gives an impression that I am questioning the science itself. No. I have never questioned 10,000 scientists on their knowledge of science. I have questioned one of them who, to arouse interest before launch of his book, makes a nasty comment out of blue about existence or non-existence of God. I don’t claim a definite answer to this concept of God but I have those basic questions about Professor Hawking's theory of God.

Secondly as far as diseases are concerned, well may be science knows the answer and may be that diseases are not caused by curse of god… but then science is yet to explain why a healthy lady gives birth to a crippled son, why one of the twins is born blind and other healthy, why one is born on a heap of garbage and other on a golden bed, why one newly born is left to die under worst conditions and why other one is pampered with all facilities one can imagine. These are just a few issues. There is a lot which science does not explain, does not have a clue to. And God is one of these issues which is beyond physics, chemistry or biology.

But at the same time it is also wrong to give an impression that science is against the theory of god. Science is against the concept of God as propounded by Christianity, but not against a realistic view of God as explained in holy scriptures like Shruties compiled and finalized by thousands of rishis and munies over thousands of years or so.
I have never questioned the wisdom of any scientist over the issues of science. But I wish they also understand that there are worlds beyond science like arts, humanity, politics, philosophy and SPIRITUALITY etc etc. I have not questioned them on science and I expect them not to question the wisdom of thousands of thinkers, philosphores, rishis and munies over matters of spirituality ie matters of their specialisation.

To write-off God we should not quote examples of andh-vishwasis. Poor or rich, anyone believing that god will give him everything without his efforts, is a psuedo-believer and his belief is likely to be shattered the moment his ship is rocked by turbulent waves. Spirituality never teaches that one can get everything merely by praying, rather it says very boldly “utho parth gandiv sambhalo”. Unless Parth gets up and does his ‘karma’ he will not get that support from God, he will not attain to moksha. And at the same time, having lifted his tools, if he feels that his victory is because of his efforts alone then also he is not fully aware as to what all has contributed to his victory. It is really a complex issue beyond the realms of known science. I really don't see any conflict in science and spiritualism. They actually compliment each other.
5 January 2012

Science says it is because of (1) genetic defect, (2) chromosome defect, (3) parents did not earn, (4) parents did not work. Fine explanation as per science. But does anyone of these reasons explain the sufferings of that newly born child? Because his father did not earn or work or his parents had some genetic or chromosomal defects so that child had to suffer right from his birth. But why did one child had to suffer and why not other? Why was that child born with a genetic defect or chromosomal defect or to poor parents or to non-working parents? How does science explain that?

And as far as some Dictums are concerned, the least I can say is none of these mis-leading dictums has scriptural sanction. We inadvertently collect all bad examples.

Scriptures say:

उद्यमेन हि सिध्दयन्ति कार्याणि न मनोरथैः।
न हि सुप्तस्य सिंहस्य प्रविशन्ति मुखे मृगाः॥
(उद्यम से ही कार्य सिध्द होते हैं, मन के घोड़े दौडाने यानी आलस से नहीं। कभी-भी सोये हुए सिंह के मुख में मृग स्वयं प्रवेश नहीं करते।)

Shrimad Bhagwad Gita says:
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूमा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि ||

So on and so forth. Scriptures never say all that is given in misleading dictums.

Secondly I agree no believer will give you a million on your assurance of your returning it in next birth. Does that dis-prove God. Does this one act of a believer has such a strong bearing on the existence of God itself? Any one aware of the mechanics of re-birth will neither make nor will accept such an offer. Believers know they are not sure to meet in next birth, not sure to remember their deal in next birth, not sure of date and place of their respective next births. So how can they enter in such a deal?

Finally yes one can earn money without remembering god, but then earning money is not the sole aim of one's life. Money, food clothes are the basic or the physiological needs of life at the lowest wrung of the famous "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" pyramid. On top of this five story pyramid is 'Self Actualisation', with 'safety', 'social' and 'self-esteem' being at the second, third and fourth wrung respectively. Rising to that Self actualisation or the spiritual stage in one's life is not that easy. In an ordinary persons life that stage comes after passing through and satisfying various other needs of life. I fully agree with the last line in the last comment: "While the question on faith comes when one is full of stomach and have some knowledge", and, as Maslow would like to add, having satisfied one's physiological, safety, social and self-esteem needs.
6 January 2012

Anecdotes or short stories are fine to clear a concept but not specific individual cases as there are a number of things involved including character and personal integrity of that indivisual and availability of complete facts about that case. Discussing personalities won’t take us anywhere. One flop baba or one sham yogi takes out of god only as much as one kidney selling Doctor or one road-side quack takes away from the father of medicine Charaka or father of surgery Sushruta or the father of western medicine Hippocrates. As a failed Doctor does not prove or dis-prove Charak, Sushruta or Hippocrates similarly a failed Yogi or a failed spiritual leader does not prove or dis-prove god. We must focus on the concepts.
7 January 2012

Someone said:
“कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन |
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूमा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि ||
was the 6000 Years old dictum.and another name of satisfaction to accept the failure,bhagwan kee yahi marzi hai ,maine to koshish karli ,fal prati(success) to bhagwan ki marji se hi hogi)”

मेरे विचार से गीता का ये श्लोक, गीता का सबसे मशहूर पर सबसे ज्यादा mis-interpreted श्लोक है. और इस गलत अनुवाद से कहीं न कहीं धर्म को नुक्सान भी हुआ है. इसे कई तरह से mis-interpret किया गया है जैसे....

‘करम किये जा फल कि इच्छा मत कर’...
’तू कर्म किये जा फल मैं तुझे अपनी मर्जी से दूंगा... तेरी सफलता मेरी मर्जी पर निर्भर करती है न कि तेरे efforts पर’...
‘कर्म करने तक ही तेरा अधिकार है, उसका फल मांगने का अधिकार नहीं है’...
इस तरह कई ऐसे अनुवाद हैं जिन्होंने इस श्लोक का मतलब ही बदल दिया. अब उन सब को छोड़ कर देखें कि इसका मतलब क्या है.

इस श्लोक में भगवान श्री कृष्ण कह रहे हैं कि कर्म पर तुम्हारा सीधा अधिकार/ नियंत्रण है पर उस कर्म से उपजने वाले फल पर तुम्हारा सीधा नियंत्रण नहीं है.

हम केवल कर्म को ही control कर सकते हैं. फल तो उस कर्म के हिसाब से खुद हमें मिलेगा. न वो भगवान की ‘मर्जी’ से और न ही हमारे direct control या हमारी इच्छा से.
भगवान के कथन के अनुसार कर्म और फल का सम्बन्ध ऐसे है जैसे हमारा एक केतली चुनना, उसमें पानी डालना, उसे आंच पर रखना... ये सब हमारे हाथ में है. हम चाहें तो ये कर्म करें, न चाहें तो ना करें. हम चाहे उस पानी को उबालें चाहे ना उबालें. हम चाहें तो उसमें पत्ती डालें चाहे ना डालें. चीनी डालें ना डालें. दूध डालें ना डालें. दूध, चीनी, पत्ती कम डालें, ज्यादा डालें, ताजे डालें खराब डालें इत्यादि. ये सब हमारे पूरे नियंत्रण में है. पर अगर हमने ये सब किया तो इसका फल हमारे सीधे नियंत्रण में नहीं है. हमारे काम और मेहनत से इसका नतीजा निकलेगा. ये एक अच्छी चाय बन सकती है, एक खराब चाय बन सकती है, एक दवा या काढ़ा बन सकती है, कड़वा जहर बन सकती है... वगैरह वगैरह, पर हम चाहे कितनी इच्छा करलें इस विधि से हमें एक प्लेट ‘हलवा’ नहीं मिल सकता. ना ही भगवान हमारे इन कर्मों के फल के रूप में खुद अपनी मर्जी से हमें ‘हलवा’ बना कर देंगे. इस विधि या कर्म से चाय बनती है तो फल हमें एक कप चाय के रूप में ही मिलेगा. हलवा बनाने के लिए दूसरे कर्म करने पड़ेंगे. कर्म पर हमारा सीधा अधिकार है फल पर नहीं.....
इसी श्लोक में आगे भगवन कहते हैं कि आप अपने नियत कर्म करते रहो. कर्मों के फल की उम्मीद से कर्म ना करो... फल तो कर्मों के हिसाब से ही मिलना है.... साथ ही ‘मा ते सन्गोस्त्वकर्मणि’ भगवान कहते हैं कि तेरी कर्म ना करने में भी आसक्ति ना हो...
ये श्लोक कहीं भी हमें असफल होने पर भी ‘संतुष्ट’ रहने को नहीं कहता. यह तो हमें कर्म के लिए ही प्रेरित करता है. ये श्लोक कहीं नहीं कहता कि भगवान की यही मर्ज़ी है... ये श्लोक तो यही कहता है कि अगर बबूल का पेड़ लगाया तो बबूल ही होगा आम नहीं... आम खाने हैं तो आम वाला काम करना होगा. बहुत साधारण और साफ़ बात. नहीं क्या?

वास्तव में ये अपने आप में एक बहुत ही गूढ़ विषय है और पूरी की पूरी किताब इस एक श्लोक पर लिखी जा सकती है.......

ये तो थी इस श्लोक के interpretation की बात. लेकिन दूसरी बात ध्यान में रखने वाली ये है कि इन श्लोकों के आधार पर हम अपने आप को, अपने कर्मों को सुधार सकते हैं... भगवान के होने या ना होने को ये श्लोक सिद्ध नहीं करते. भगवान का अस्तित्व एक श्लोक, एक किताब, या ऐसे कुछ एक ग्रंथों पर नहीं टिका... वो एक बहुत बड़ा concept है जिसे गूढ़ अध्ययन के बाद ही समझा जा सकता है...
8 January 2012

Further it is said
"Same is dictum in sanskrit verse which do not proves god ,but proves efforts
उद्यमेन हि सिध्दयन्ति कार्याणि न मनोरथैः।
न हि सुप्तस्य सिंहस्य प्रविशन्ति मुखे मृगाः॥
(उद्यम से ही कार्य सिध्द होते हैं, मन के घोड़े दौडाने यानी आलस से नहीं। कभी-भी सोये हुए सिंह के मुख में मृग स्वयं प्रवेश नहीं करते।)
If you are doing efforts then what the god is doing??
if god is helping you then why the need of efforts??"

जहाँ तक भगवान के होने या न होने की बात है तो जैसा कि मैंने पहले भी लिखा है इन एक दो श्लोकों के आधार पर हम भगवान के अस्तित्व को सिद्ध या नकार नहीं सकते... ये सब इकट्ठे मिलकर एक तस्वीर बनाते हैं जिससे हम अपनी समझ के अनुरूप निष्कर्ष निकाल सकते हैं.

वो नाविकों वाली कहानी इसी कड़ी में एक कहानी थी. उससे कहीं भगवान का होना या न होना सिद्ध नहीं होता. मगर वो भिन्न परिस्थितियों में हमारी मनोदशा को जाहिर करती है. भगवान में विश्वास करने वाले पूजा करते हैं और बच भी जाते हैं पर वो अपनी आँखों के सामने किये जा रहे प्रयत्नों को नहीं नकार सकते इसलिए वो अपनी पूजा में, विश्वास में कमी को स्वीकार करते हैं.
दूसरी तरफ खुद अपनी मेहनत से जहाज को बचाने वाले भी उस एक शक्ति का अनुभव करते हैं जिस का अस्तित्व वो अभी तक नहीं मानते थे या नहीं जानते थे. वो स्वीकार करते हैं कि उनके efforts के बाबजूद कुछ और शक्ति थी.

अब अकेले इस episode से भगवान के अस्तित्व पर शायद निष्कर्ष न निकाला जा सके... ये तो एक छोटा सा input है उस बड़े concept को समझने के लिए...
8 January 2012

बिलकुल ठीक कहा; धर्म को सबसे ज्यादा नुक्सान धर्मान्धता व कट्टरपन से हुआ है. किसी ने आज इसे कमाई का साधन बना लिया है तो किसी ने status symbol की तरह अपनाया है. अच्छी तरह से समझ कर पालन करने वाले उतना सामने नहीं आते जितना दिखावे वाले.
8 January 2012

In one of the previous comments there is a story about ‘The man who says he hasn't eaten or drunk for 70 years’.
I don’t know specific details of this particular case but one thing is there irrespective of it being true or false, it has no bearings on the theory of existence of god. If it is true still it is not a miracle by god. And if it is false then again it is not related to existence or non-existence of god.

However in his book ‘Autobiography of a Yogi’, Swami Paramahansa Yogananda has mentioned having met a couple of such saints who had not eaten or drunk anything for decades, including a European saint and an Indian saint ‘Giri Bala’ from Bengal. Swamiji has covered this topic in detail and has tried to explain it scientifically.
Swami ji explains that it is all related to conservation of energy. Through practice and self-control one can save daily and routine outflow of energy. Routine physical activities are brought down to barest minimum level.

In his book Swamiji recounts his interaction with the saint.
“The saint resumed the tale, her gentle voice barely audible. "The GHAT was deserted, but my guru cast round us an aura of guarding light, that no stray bathers later disturb us. He initiated me into a KRIA technique which frees the body from dependence on the gross food of mortals. The technique includes the use of a certain MANTRA and a breathing exercise more difficult than the average person could perform. No medicine or magic is involved; nothing beyond the KRIA… I have no bodily excretions. I can control my heart and breathing..."

Further in the book Swamiji has quoted from a lecture by some Dr in Cleveland:
"What we eat is radiation; our food is so much quanta of energy," Dr. George W. Crile of Cleveland told a gathering of medical men on May 17, 1933 in Memphis. "This all-important radiation, which releases electrical currents for the body's electrical circuit, the nervous system, is given to food by the sun's rays. Atoms, Dr. Crile says, are solar systems. Atoms are the vehicles that are filled with solar radiance as so many coiled springs. These countless atomfuls of energy are taken in as food. Once in the human body, these tense vehicles, the atoms, are discharged in the body's protoplasm, the radiance furnishing new chemical energy, new electrical currents. 'Your body is made up of such atoms,' Dr. Crile said. 'They are your muscles, brains, and sensory organs, such as the eyes and ears.'"
“Someday scientists will discover how man can live directly on solar energy. "Chlorophyll is the only substance known in nature that somehow possesses the power to act as a 'sunlight trap,'" William L. Laurence writes in the NEW YORK TIMES. "It 'catches' the energy of sunlight and stores it in the plant. Without this no life could exist. We obtain the energy we need for living from the solar energy stored in the plant-food we eat or in the flesh of the animals that eat the plants. The energy we obtain from coal or oil is solar energy trapped by the chlorophyll in plant life millions of years ago. We live by the sun through the agency of chlorophyll."

This practice of not eating brings in some physiological changes in the body. Talking about his meeting a German saint who ate only one thin coin-sized-wafer a day for decades, Swamiji recounts some physiological details about the saint given by a professor: “Because Therese takes no food, her stomach has shrunk. She has no excretions, but her perspiration glands function; her skin is always soft and firm.”

This book "Autobiography of a Yogi", amongst others, is a great aid for the spiritual journey of a seeker...
9 January 2012

'योगी की आत्मकथा' या उसमें दिए गए किस्से किसी भी तरह हमें ये मानने के लिए मजबूर नहीं करते कि भगवान है. ये उनके अपने जीवन के दृष्टान्त हैं जो उन्होंने हमारे साथ share किये हैं. लेकिन मैंने पाया है कि इस विषय पर और बहुत सी किताबों के साथ इस किताब से भी मुझे बहुत सी बातें समझने में मदद मिली है.
जैसा कि मैंने पहले भी लिखा है गिरी बाला, थेरेस्सा, जानी इत्यादि के वर्णनों से भगवान को सिद्ध किया या नाकारा नहीं जा सकता. ये किस्से अध्यात्म और विज्ञान के समन्वय के अच्छे उदहारण हैं. जो सही लगे वाही हमने मानना है.
और इस मंच पर यही कोशिश हो रही है कि अपनी बात को एक दूसरे पर थोपे बिना हम अपना पहलु रख सकें. पर इसमें हमें पूरी तरह से खुला माहौल रखना है.

हमारे विज्ञान की पहुँच में अध्यात्म अभी तक नहीं आया है क्योंकि उस पर हुई research से 'विज्ञान' अभी उतना ही अनभिज्ञ है जितना वो accounts, political science, या pure arts से है. विज्ञान अभी भी human behaviour की गुत्थियां सुलझाने में लगा है जबकि अध्यात्म ने इसे कई जगह कई तरह से explain कर दिया है. आप की ही तरह मैंने भी गिरी बाला का उदाहरण सिर्फ इसलिए दिया कि इस बात का जिक्र कमेंट्स में आ गया था. तब भी मैंने कहा था कि इस बात का सीधे भगवान के होने या ना होने पर असर नहीं पड़ता.

आज का विज्ञान अभी इस तह तक नहीं पहुंचा है कि वो इन सभी बातों को वैज्ञानिक तरीके से समझ सके या एक्सप्लेन कर सके. ऐसे हालात में इन घटनाओं को जादू या मनघडंत घटनाओं का नाम लेकर नकारने के अलावा 'science' के पास और कोई चारा नहीं बचता. अभी की science पुनर्जन्म को भी नहीं जानती. अंधविश्वास से हमें बचना चाहिए. मगर साथ ही जो कुछ हमें समझ ना आये उस सब को ही अन्धविश्वास मान कर नकारने से भी सावधान रहने की जरूरत है.

हमें दोनों तरफ की बातों को सुनकर ठीक ठीक को रख कर और बाकी बातों को छोड़ कर अपना निष्कर्ष निकालना है. अध्यात्म को सिर्फ इस लिए हम नहीं नकार सकते की वो अभी western science की पहुँच से बाहर है.
9 January 2012

As for the Somnath temple and its destruction despite "Indians believed Firmly in the god Somnath, that the omnipotent will save us ,and the Idol from looted", we need to separate vishwas from andhvishwas. God is in every idol and in every temple and in every person.... but god is not THE idol, the temple is neither god nor gods residence, every person, as he is, is not god. This distinction of being 'in' and being 'the' is very important. Vital force breath is there in every living being but living being itself is not the breath. Wave-currents are there in ocean but ocean itself is not Wave.
Blindly believing that a Temple will save itself and its followers is blindest of blind faiths. Temple is an important instrument at a particular stage of ones spiritual journey but is not the end-all of faith. Giving any more importance to the temple, be it Somnath or any other temple, is not justified.
Idols and temples are symbols and aids only.Faith is important but blind-faith or andhvishwas is very very dangerous.
10 January 2012

Reminds one of a beautiful ghajal sung by Jagjit Singh;
"Mujh ko yakee'n hai sach kehti thi jo bhi Ammi kehti thi.
Jab mere bachpan k din the chand pe pariyan rehti thi....!"
11 January 2012

Let’s discuss the questions raised in certain recent comments.
Q.1Then why be depend on god?
== True spiritualism does not ask us to blindly depend on God. Nor on anything else. Believing in something and being dependent on that thing are slightly different issues.
But it depends on one’s personal advancement. At initial stages of our spiritual awakening we need a number of things like symbols, scriptures, temples to depend on for guidance and assistance. God only helps those who help themselves.

Q.2 If we can help us then why should we remain dependent of faith?
==To help ourselves we need wisdom to discover the right solutions and then strength to implement them. We get both these through faith. Faith in ourselves, faith in our capabilities, faith in our convictions.
Unless one has faith one will not be able to help anyone or achieve anything as he would always be in doubt. So faith is the first requirement for success. Secondly, being dependent on faith alone without any efforts is blind faith and we have to be wary of that.

Q.3 If god helped on believe "bhakti" than why we sacrified some 10,000 of our students teachers, pujari's and bhakts in somnath mandir?
==Merely bhakti never claims to save one of all evils and all dangers. And specific instances never help in proving or dis-proving god unless we know full details of all the characters involved in that episode. We do not know who all got killed, what was their individual spiritual level, what was their moral level, what were their sanskaars, what was the cumulative effect of their earlier karmas, what type of karmas did they perform in this life etc etc…. These are some of the issues which will help in getting an answer to this question.
In general if you ask any question then that can be answered based on the principles and understanding of spiritual teachings.

Q.4 If the karm (work, even loot for his nation, killing of 10000 Indians) is important ,and not the bhakti(Gods prayer,and decision to nonviolence even attacked by invader,even ours 10000, Indians being killed ,,उस समय ईस्वर में दृढ धारणा थी, न्यायशील ईस्वर हत्यारे को स्वयं सजा देगा , हम अपना बचाव करने के लिए भी हिंसा से दूर रहेंगे not to do violence),as gazni destroyed the gods image(no doubtans it was Idol,and the Idol destroying is considers in his and religeonal and religions opinion good)
==Karma and bhakti are two different issues but not necessarily exclusive of each other. Both can co-exist. Righteous karma is always considered better than simple bhakti.

Q.5 And why we considers god superior then work??
==Work and god are incomparable. One cannot compare work with god. However as explained earlier righteous karma is considered better than simple bhakti.

Q.6 Why this god is required, in this physical world?? I am not talking for futures reward of heaven and future punishment of hell's if we are not believer decision.
==This physical world is part of the wholesome world. And god is not required for ‘mere existence’. God is required for better understanding of our existence. Our existence in this world and beyond. God is required to know the truth… for being one with reality… to know ourselves.

Q.7 as you suggested Socrates example, for guru, you mean you will not help in search of god ,we have to find guru in such impatience as if we are dying without guru??
==What or who is Guru? Anyone who teaches something is guru. It could be a teacher, book, friend, just anyone. No we will not die without guru. But if we are treated by a doctor who has never had a guru (teacher, professor) and operates on us with kitchen knife and screw-drivers, we sure will find it difficult to survive. If we need clarity of concepts we have to rely on additional aids like teachers or gurus at one stage or the other in our life.

Q.8 in this coaching life and every knowledge, every useful and real art and science has grown to maximum has established its university. is there any established professor (guru) or university (institute temple) of god seeking (Imaginary and vanishing).
==No. And this is very very unfortunate. In India we have adopted a faulty concept of Secularism. Over last around 1500 years there have been continuous attempts to destroy all our teachings but fortunately sufficient material is still available for the real seekers.
“kuchh baat hai ki hasti mitati nahi hamari
sadiyon raha hai dushman daure jahan hamara…
sare jahan se achha hindostan hamaara…”

Q.8 isn't it downfall of god's science followers of every religion has considers it as a weekend programme.as a formality?? (hindus go temple according to there istadev monday>shiva bhakt,tuesday >hanumanbhakt, wednessday>Ganesh bhakt.Thursday>Narayanbhakt, Friday ,As A Juma ki namaj mohammadans, saturday hanuman and shanimaharaj bhakt,Suday >christians as a sunday prayer.
==That is pseudo spiritualism and we got to be wary of that too. True religion does not ask us to visit temples regularly or periodically. Temples, idols, crosses, bells etc are only aids and are relevant at a particular stage but one has to outgrow these symbols. Problem starts when we get stuck to these aids and refuse to rise above the same.
Swami Vivekanand once said, 'If a child doesn't go to temple, he should be condemned. But if an old man still goes to temple, he must be condemned too'.
We have to evolve and know when to leave the temple.

I have tried to cover all points and share my views on same.

11 January 2012
My inspiration comes from Srimad Bhagwad Geeta only. That's a wonderful work which transcends all religious or time limits. It's teaching is eternal and universal.
11 January 2012

The Lokayat philosophy is a failed philosophy. They criticised each and every school of philosophy. Its basic premise is a doctrine of negation. It negates what it does not see or does not understand. That limits its scope of experimenting and exploration. It regards human happiness as the highest ethical end because it is not aware of the stage of self-actualisation which is something beyond simple happiness and is defined as "the full realization of one's potential". The basic idea of Lokayata philosophy: "this world is the only world, this life is the only life and one should make the best of it" is basically a flawed concept.
A sample of Lokayat or Charvak's Philosophy:

Yada Jeevam, Sukham Jivet,
Rinam kritvam, ghritam pibet.

As long as you live, live happily.
Borrow money and drink Ghee.

It is a sure prescription for disaster....
13 January 2012
The clothes in our childhood have for sure outlived their utility for a youth, but have the milk? Is not the milk still the same, the roti, daal, gaajar ka halwa remain the same. Some things are 'kaal-desh' specific whereas others are eternal.

Similar are our scriptures. There are 'shruties' and there are 'smrities'. Shruties are eternal. The very essence, the all important teachings which are not bound by time. Vedas and Shrimad Bhagwad Geeta are shruties. These are eternal. The basic essence of life transcending all barriers of time, country and religion.

The second set are 'smrities'. These are desh-kaal specific. Relevant for a certain time, under certain circumstances, for certain group of people or country. These are sort of guidelines. These start losing their relevance as the time or the circumstances or the land changes. Manu Smriti is example of such smrities. You move out of that era or that land and most of the guidelines become outdated or irrelevant.

These smrities are like our clothes in the example whereas the shruties, the message of Bhagwad Geeta, like our basic food milk and bread, remain as relevant throughout as they have ever been. Only the doses change with our physical and mental capabilities.
14 January 2012

Just one word about 'Irreligion' campaign. It is again a campaign of negation. It is something like NAM the Non-Aligned Movement. Its members vowed not to take side of Russia or America in the cold-war. But despite their staying away, the Russia and America existed and continued their cold-war for years.
Similarly this irreligion campaign denies everything and stays away from religion, god etc but actually it has no bearings on existence and survival of any religion. It is only that they don't believe in or take side of any religion.
14 January 2012

Unless you come out with your views and specific queries, you might not get the complete picture. As I have said somewhere earlier also, no one can give you a specific answer 'yes' or 'no', you will only get different views and explanations which will help you in reaching at your own considered opinion. So please come out with your queries now.
24 January 2012

Very important issue. We must expose blind-faith and fundamentalist views. All our views, beliefs should be tested in the face of open criticism and critical analysis. Merely by banning or avoiding someone we are not doing anyone any good.
25 January 2012

Someone quoted:

"ALLAH SAY KARAY DOOR TOU TALEEM BHI FITNA"

"IMLAQ BHI AOULAD BHI JAGEER BHI FITNA"

"NA HUQ KAY LIYA UDHAY TOU SHAMSHEER BHI FITNA"

" SHAMSHEER HI KIA NARAEYE TAQBEER BHI FITNA" "

Beautiful quotes from Iqbal.
There are good and bad aspects of everything. Good Taleem (education), bad taleem. Anything taking us away from basics is bad, misguiding.
Andhvishwas, fanaticism, kattarpan etc are actually due to misguidance and misunderstandings about religion. A true follower with proper understanding of the tenets of religion will never be fanatical or fundamentalist.
Fanaticism is not 'because' of religion, rather it is because of 'absence' of true understanding of religion.
8 February 2012

श्रेयान्स्वधर्मों विगुण: परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेय: परधर्मो भयावह ।।
अपना धर्म का पालन करना अति उत्तम है चाहे पालन में कुछ कमी भी रह जाए, बल्कि इसके कि अच्छी प्रकार से आचरण में लाते हुए हम दूसरे के धर्म का पालन करें. अपने धर्म के पालन में तो मरना भी कल्याणकारक है और दूसरे का धर्म का पालन भयावः है.
पर धर्म से मतलब यहाँ अंग्रेजी वाला religion नहीं है बल्कि ये एक wider term है. Righteous duty, अपनी प्रकृति, स्वधर्म, अपनी जिम्मेवारी, अपना फ़र्ज़, prescribed duties complementing one's psycho-physical condition.. वगैरह वगैरह. हमारा स्वधर्म पालन करने में ही कल्याण है, पर धर्म का सेवन और निषिद्ध कर्मों का आचरण करने में सब प्रकार से हानि है.
8 February 2012

कई बार लगता है कि भगवान गलत आदमी का साथ दे रहे हैं और सही आदमी के साथ गलत हो रहा है... और अगर हम इस बात को किसी incident से जोड़कर देखें तो हमें बहुत से उदाहरण भी मिल जाते हैं इस तरह के.
गुत्थी जरा जटिल लगती है मगर 'कर्म' के
सिद्धांत को समझने से यह गुत्थी सुलझने लगती है.
इस थ्योरी के आधार पर किसी के साथ जो कुछ भी आज हो रहा है वह उसके जन्म से लेकर अब तक के व उससे पहले पिछले जन्मों के इकट्ठे कर्मों का परिणाम है. और अगर कंहीं किसी हालात में जबरन कुछ कम या ज्यादा हो गया है तो उसका हिसाब भी आने वाले समय में बराबर हो जाएगा.
इस सबके लिए भगवान को तो मानो या ना मानो, अध्यात्म का अध्ययन महत्वपूर्ण है.
4 March 2012

यह कथन कि "इस तर्क से ब्राह्मणों ने पूरे हिन्दुस्तान को सदियों से गुलाम बना कर रखा है .और आगे भी बनाये रखेंगे", थोडा भ्रम पैदा करता है.

ब्राह्मणों ने यह ज्ञान औरों तक जाने ही नहीं दिया. उन्होंने वेदों को औरों की पहुँच से बाहर करने की सफल कोशिश की और सबको कहा कि 'पुराण' पढ़ो. जब पुराण समझ में आ जाएँ तब वेड पढ़ना. और ये 18 पुराण और 21 उप पुराण क्या हैं? मैं पहले भी कह चूका हूँ कि ये 'स्मृतियों' कि श्रेणी में आते हैं जिनका उपयोग ब्राह्मणों ने लोगों को सही अध्यात्म से दूर रख अपनी हकुमत चलने के लिए किया.

आपके तर्क शुरू बेशक वेद या श्रुतियों को लेकर होते हैं पर जल्दी ही इन स्मृतियों पर केंद्रित हो जाते हैं और असली मुद्दे से भटक जाते हैं. यही तरीका ब्राह्मणों ने अपनाया था. सारी चर्चा सिर्फ पुराणों और स्मृतियों पर हो शुरू उन्ही पर खत्म कर देते थे और जनता को उल्लू बनाते रहते थे.

कृप्या कर इन स्मृतियों के जाल से बाहर आओ फिर देखो अध्यात्म में कितना खजाना छिपा है.
4 March 2012
Someone said:

".अगर अध्यात्म से बाहर आ गए तो शास्त्र निंदक कहलाओगे . ब्रामण निंदक की जीभ काटने और वेद पढ़ने वाले शूद्रों के कानों में शीशा डालने के आदेश मनुस्म्र्ती में लिखे हैं"

पर मैं फिर अपनी वही request दोहरा रहा हूँ कि ब्राह्मणवाद से पुराणों से बाहर निकलो तभी कुछ बात बनेगी. पुराणों से आपका नाता जब तक टूटेगा नहीं असली बात को आप पहचान नहीं पायेंगे. मनुस्मृति और यहाँ तक बुद्धिस्म ने असली दर्शन का बहुत नुक्सान किया है.
4 March 2012

धर्म के बिना social जीवन संभव ही नहीं है. धर्म ही हर किसी को उसकी जिम्मेवारियों, कार्यपद्धतियों आदि की जानकारी देता है. बिना धर्म के तो फिर जंगल राज होता है. हाँ धर्म कंही पर शास्त्र नियत करते हैं, कंही प्रचलित पद्धतियाँ और कंही कानून कि किताबें.
4 March 2012

बुद्धिस्म ने आकाश से टपका कर खजूर पर लटका दिया था.
और ब्राह्मणवाद से दूर हटने के लिए ही तो ये सारा प्रयास है. उनसे दूर अगर हटना चाहते हैं तो पुराणों और स्मृतियों का साथ छोडना होगा.
4 March 2012

हमें इन 'वादों' से हट कर मूल पर जाना है. वहीँ सब कुछ है.
4 March 2012

facebook discussion: May be humanity is possible without religion?

2012-02-22T19:11:00.000+05:30

Religion in English representing 'Hindu, Muslim, Isai' etc is a shallow term.
But if we mean 'Dharm' here then humanity itself is Dharm and two complement each other. Thus humanity is possible because of 'Dharm' only. Without following one's Dharm one can not be humane.
21 February 2012

fbd: Changing the names of cities

2012-02-22T02:52:00.000+05:30

यहाँ दो तरह के किस्से हैं. एक तो वो जहाँ पूरा नाम ही बदला जाता है, मसलन चांदनी चौक के बारे में सुना है कि इसका नया नाम सचिन के नाम पर रखा जा रहा है. ये बड़ा ही सेंसिटिव होता है और हमें इतिहास और परंपरा का सदैव ध्यान रखना चाहिए व आदर करना चाहिए. अवांछनीय तौर पर जनता की जुबान पर चढ़े नामों के साथ छेड़छाड़ नहीं करनी चाहिए. पर साथ ही जबरदस्ती के आतंक्तायिओं, हमलावरों व विदेशियों के नामों पर रखे अपने शहरों व चौकों के नाम बदल लेने चाहियें.

और दूसरा वो जहाँ उच्चारण सही किया जाता है मसलन अंग्रेजी के कैलकटा या हिंदी को कलकत्ता की जगह सही बंगाली उच्चारण कोलकाता. तो इसे में बिलकुल बुरा नहीं मानता. मैं आज भी 'न्यू देल्ही' की जगह 'दिल्ली' लिखना और बोलना ज्यादा पसंद करता हूँ. अच्छा लगेगा अगर विश्व भी इसे दिल्ली के नाम से जानेगा.

21 February 2012

facebook discussion: Valentine's Day with family

2012-02-13T19:02:00.000+05:30

"Can Valentine's day be celebrated with your PARENTS, HUSBAND AND other members of your family & not necessarily with boy or girl friend."

The concept of celebrating a day with your PARENTS, HUSBAND AND other members of your family & not necessarily with boy or girl friend is a very noble one.
But unfortunately the Valentine's day has got stuck with romantic love all over. Today it would be a herculean task to take it away from flawed concept of 'romance' and link it with love for siblings and parents. Today we have to accept it or reject it as something linked with romance. It can not be visualised as love for anyone else.
12 February 2012

facebook discussion: The ink of the scholar is more sacred then the blood of martyr...?

2012-01-28T15:01:00.000+05:30

No doubt a martyr makes the supreme sacrifice and must be held in the highest esteem. And accordingly we always put our martyrs at the highest pedestal.
But it a thought provoking question.
Say there are two equally die-hard patriots, on the same mission, does equally heroic acts, one makes the supreme sacrifice and dies on the battle front, and the other survives.
The battle is still not won.
The other one goes back to the society and...... and he motivates others through his talks, speeches, writings and succeeds in producing ten more youngsters like themselves. They all together achieve success in their mission.
I think the scholar gets more opportunity and time to motivate and pass the knowledge to other members of society or groups of humans beings, therefore in the ultimate evaluation he can contribute more to the society.
But it does not take away anything from the sacrifice of a martyr. We should continue to hold him in the highest esteem, higher than any scholar, for the ultimate sacrifice of his life.
24 January 2012
मेरा मानना है कि विचार ही पराक्रमी शूरवीर पैदा करते हैं. एक विचार सौ शूरवीर पैदा कर सकते हैं. विचारों कि महत्ता को नाकारा नहीं जा सकता. लेकिन शूरवीरों के प्रति हमें सम्मान रखना है कि आखिर में उन्होंने ही उस विचार को मूर्त रूप दिया.
और जहाँ तक बिस्मार्क की बात है तो भाई यहाँ भी मैं कोई द्वन्धाभास नहीं देखता. Power can be exerted by living beings only. Scholar's words (ink) ensure availability of power through motivated soldiers. Martyrs always inspire us to sacrifice but thoughts motivate us to take the chance with our lives.
24 January 2012

One has asked my comments on importance of words. I think in my both comments I have highlighted the importance of words only. Though I have mentioned that we should have highest regards for a martyr who has laid down his life, but I have maintained superiority of words/ink of a scholar over that. I quote from my previous comments:
"I think the scholar gets more opportunity and time to motivate and pass the knowledge to other members of society or groups of human beings, therefore in the ultimate evaluation he can contribute more to the society."
" विचार ही पराक्रमी शूरवीर पैदा करते हैं. एक विचार सौ शूरवीर पैदा कर सकते हैं. विचारों कि महत्ता को नकारा नहीं जा सकता."
"Scholar's words (ink) ensure availability of power through motivated soldiers. Martyrs always inspire us to sacrifice but thoughts motivate us to take the chance with our lives."
I think these lines clearly indicate where my vote lies. Without losing any respect for our martyrs, I am fully in support of words/ink of a scholar.
25 January 2012

यहाँ 'scholar' से अभिप्राय एक लेखक का नहीं है. बल्कि एक ऐसा व्यक्ति जो अपने विचारों से, चाहे वे बोल कर कहे जाएँ या लिखकर, दूसरों के विचारों को प्रभावित कर सकता है. एक उच्च दर्जे का विद्वान.
मुंशी प्रेमचंद की कहानी में 'लेखक' एक साधारण लेखक
है जिसे मुंशी प्रेमचंद जी ने एक उच्च विद्वान की तरह नहीं दिखाया है.

हालाँकि इस में कोई शक नहीं कि ‘ink of the scholar’ और ‘blood of the martyr’ की तुलना करना मुश्किल ही नहीं कुछ हद तक गलत भी है. मेरे विचार से एक शहीद की शहादत के बारे में बात करना या किसी से तुलना करना अपने आप में एक कृतघ्नता पूर्ण कार्य लगता है.

पर फिर भी हम यहाँ चर्चा कर रहे हैं क्योंकि कोशिश है कि भावनाओं से परे हम किसी विषय पर अपने विचार साफ़ कर सकें. और ऐसे में अगर हमें दोनों में से चुनना ही है तो मेरा विचार है कि राष्ट्र उदय तो शहीदों की शहादत से ही होता है मगर वो शहीद खुद किसी विचारों के चलते ही पैदा होते हैं और राष्ट्र उदय के बाद भी राष्ट्र निर्माण के लिए वे विचार ही ज्यादा रचनात्मक role अदा करते हैं.
27 January 2012

fbd: करप्सन , जबरदस्त लोकपाल और ....... हम लोग

2012-01-25T03:05:00.000+05:30

What are we looking for in Lokpal? A superman with super powers and super integrity? Or a super mechanism? I think we are not searching for a superman from some alien planet, we are just looking for a simple mechanism to contain corruption. This mechanism will not be the only solution but it will be one important, rather the most important link of that chain to contain corruption.
I feel it is high time that we establish a mechanism which can take cognizance of complaints involving corruption.
Today if one has to complain against a corrupt SHO of a Police Station what is the remedy? Complain at the same PS? At some other PS?Complain to his superior officer, the SP? Lodge an FIR? Where? Complain at police control room? At help centre? etc etc all these are part of the same organisation. May even be the same 'chain' asking for money. Or one goes to his MLA, MP, CM or some other political leader. There is practically no mechanism where one can lodge his complaint for a possible action. Under present mechanism you complain to an official who himself is the part of that system. He might or might not be directly involved but he is part of that chain. On his part the SHO just has to be careful of a 'heavyweight', rest he can continue to do whatever he wants. And it is true for most of the other departments too.

The Lokpal is not the only solution but it will be one very important step of that mechanism against corruption. Once there is some mechanism, the results would also be there. We have seen that in case of EC, CVC, CAG etc.

And as far as someone coming from outside to head this office is concerned, well we have had enough of those coming from outside... let the real Indians take over.
16 January 2012

facebook discussion: Murti puja: sahi ya galat

2011-12-30T00:09:00.000+05:30

मूर्ति पूजा में अच्छा या बुरा लगने वाली बात नहीं है. ये इस तरह है जैसे बचपन में हम चार लाइनों वाली कापी में लिखते थे और बड़े होकर बिना लाइनों वाली में. बचपन में हम हाथ पकड़ कर चलते थे आज बिना सहारे के.... हमारे विकास में लाइनों वाली कापी और हाथ पकड़ कर चलने की एक स्टेज के बाद जरूरत नहीं लगती मगर कभी ये बहुत जरूरी थे..... इनके महत्त्व को नकारा नहीं जा सकता...
इसी तरह मैं समझता हूँ कि हमारे अध्यात्मिक विकास में मूर्ती पूजा का भी एक महत्त्व है जिसे नज़रअंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता...
29 December 2011

Not only Hinduism, all major religions of the world have their symbols. The forms differ. The symbols are nothing but small tags which remind one of something. One sees photo
of a Crescent and star, a cross, a book, an idol etc etc and one is reminded of something based on one's beliefs and teachings.
Hinduism has a progressive approach to spiritualism. One progresses from one stage to another, from lower to higher. This idol worship is very important part of our religion but it is not the soul of Hinduism as many would have us believe. It is, like in those examples in my previous comment, aid at the very initial stage of one's spiritual life. One soon out grows it and needs these idols and symbols no more.
One saint once said, "on my first visit I saw temple and the idol, on second visit I saw idol and the lord and on my third visit I saw lord only." The temple was gone.... The idol was gone...
That's the system how it works. Those who say Hinduism is based on idol worship have seen the first visit only and made up their mind. They have not seen the second and third visits. They have not seen the evolution of spiritualism. It is like one visits the primary section of a school and then proclaims that the students of that school write with pencils on a four lined sheet of paper. He has not seen secondary class students using all types of pens and blank non-ruled sheets of paper. Though those senior students don't need pencils and ruled sheets, still they cant deny importance of these sheets in their evolution from primary class to middle and to higher classes. That's the role of idols in Hinduism.
29 December 2011

facebook discussion: Is it necessary to have education through English Medium school?

2011-12-07T19:07:00.000+05:30

अंग्रेजी भाषा इतनी महत्वपूर्ण क्यों है? क्यों जरूरी लगता है अंग्रेजी भाषा का ज्ञान?
व्यापार के लिए? नहीं. व्यापार खुद ग्राहक की भाषा अपना लेता है.
तकनिकी व उच्च शिक्षा के लिए? नहीं. उच्च शिक्षा अगर अंग्रेजी के अलावा जापानी, चीनी, जर्मनी, फिन्निश, फ्रेंच, रूसी, इतालवी वगैरह वगैरह भाषाओँ में दी जा सकती है तो हिंदी, तमिल, बंगला, मलयालम आदि भाषाओं में भी दी जा सकती है.
अंतर्राष्ट्रीय बातचीत और मेलमिलाप के लिए? असलियत में यहाँ भी नहीं. अमरीका और इंग्लैंड के आलावा अन्य यूरोपीय व अमरीकन देश के लोगों को अंग्रेजी भी फारसी ही लगती है. फिर भी अगर मान लें कि यह अंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर जरूरी है तो कितनो के लिए.... क्या उस वजह से हर भारतीय को इसकी पढ़ाई जरूरी है?
ये व ऐसे ही अन्य कारण असली वजह नहीं हैं. असली वजह है कि अंग्रेजी आज भी भारतवर्ष की de-facto अकेली राजभाषा है. अंग्रेजी प्रशासन की मुख्य भाषा है. अंग्रेजी कानून की आधिकारिक भाषा है. आज भी राजपत्र (Gazette Notification) हिंदी और अंग्रेजी दोनों में छपते हैं पर वहां लिखा होता है की अनुवाद या interpretation में फर्क आने पर अंग्रेजी version को सही माना जाये.
दुर्भाग्य से सन १९४७ के बाद शासन व्यवस्था नहीं बदली. वही अंग्रेजों के जमाने के जेलर राज कर रहे हैं.
अंग्रेजी भाषा का महत्व आम लोगों की पसंद नहीं मजबूरी है.
यह व्यवस्था बदलनी चाहिए. हमारी मातृभाषा को सही सम्मान और गौरव मिलना चाहिए.
लेकिन जब तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं बदलती तो हमें इसे 'मास्टर' करना है. इंतज़ार में बैठ कर नहीं होगा... इस व्यवस्था से निबटने के लिए व प्रशासन व क़ानून में अपनी आवाज़ सुनाने के लिए आने वाली पीढ़ी को अंग्रेजी भाषा को भी अपनाना है तभी वे आज के समाज में अपनी जगह बना पायेंगे और अपनी मातृभाषा के अधिकारों के लिए पूरे जोर से लड़ पायेंगे. देश के जन-मानस का उद्धार मातृभाषा से ही होगा.
30 November 2011

आज का ही उदाहरण लें आप Microsoft के विज्ञापन हिंदी व अन्य भारतीय भाषाओं में छपे देख सकते हैं, McDonalds ने "McAloo Tikki" nikali hai, coca-cola aur pepsi ke ads bhi hindi va bhartiya bhashon mein aa rahe hain. Hindustan mein vyapar ke liye inhone hindi ko apnaya hai. japanese ya chinese products khareedne ke liye hame unki bhaasha nahin seekhni vo hamari bhaasha mein hamen samjhaenge.
East India Company ne bhi yahi kiya tha. Here is an extract from an article on East India Company:
"The establishment of the East India Company in 1600 led to increasing contacts between England and maritime Asia. From the start, the Company was aware of the multilingual nature of its enterprise and its hiring policy favoured those with linguistic skill and experience. The Company even planned and provided language training: young European boys were sent to "learn the language" at its trading posts throughout the East Indies, and Asian and African employees and slaves were trained in European languages at the trading posts. Thus the Company also had a vested interest in the publication of bilingual language manuals in England"
East India Company even started English scholarships on Asian languages during the seventeenth century.
English ka mahatva, unfortunately, anya kai vajah se hai vyapar kii vajah se nahin.
6 December 2011

facebook discussion: Creation of smaller states

2011-12-06T15:22:00.000+05:30

The fears that creation of more states would lead to disintegration of the country seems to be unfounded. These states can not be compared with those princely states we had at the time of independence. At that time the question was of dominion.... with all those princely states having the right to accede to either the dominion of India or the dominion of Pakistan.
It is a different situation now. We are a Union, a Federal Republic having power distribution between Central and the State Governments.
Sardar Patel himself created this system and all those princely states were organised into various States accepting the sovereignty of India. So no one, including the Constitution of India and Indian citizen, is basically against 'States' within the Union.
The question is how many.
It depends on various factors including population, territorial, administrative, political and economical. We can discuss division of Uttar Pradesh on these issues but should not link it to disintegration equating it with princely states at the time of Independence.
And purely on the population front we can see that with 35 states and UTs for 120 crore people we have a government for every 3.5 crore of populaion on an average. However in case of UP it is one government for the whole of 17 crore people. Bahut nainsaafi hai ye...
Going by national average we can have 5 states in UP and a few more in other big states.
1 December 2011

I hope one is not advocating one country-one state theory. I mean we have to be clear whether we are against the concept of smaller manageable and viable States or against creation of states on regionalism or on the basis of specific groups.
These divisions on religious or linguistic basis are different issues not directly related to creation of a state. A Punjabi in Delhi, UP or even in Assam is still a Punjabi and on the other hand within Punjab itself we have other communities and regional divisions. Malwa, Majha and Doaba are very prominent sub-divisions of Punjab.
Smaller viable and manageable states are good for the people of that state as well as for the development of the country.
Maharashtra, once one of the most prosperous states, is also stagnating because of its size. With a population of 11 crore Maharashtra can also be divided into 2 or 3 manageable states.
1 December 2011

Jharkhand, rather the political mess in Jharkhand is very often cited as a bad example of smaller states. But in our enthusiasm to play down creation of new states we should not pick-up bad examples only. It would have been better if we had talked about Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand too with comparatively stable governments.
Moreover we may recall that between Jan 1990 and Dec 2001 Gujarat state has had as many as 9 different CMs belonging to 4 different parties. Madhav Singh Solanki, Chimanbhai Patel, Chhabildas Mehta, Keshubhai Patel, Suresh Mehta, Shankersinh Vaghela, Dilipbhai Ramanbhai Parikh, again Keshubhai Patel and then Narendra Modi belonging to INC, JD(G), RJP and BJP. Is it any better than the example of Jharkhand being quoted time and again? And what after this? After this Gujarat has known only one CM. It is simply not a criteria to be considered while discussing the concept of midsize viable States as compared to large unmanageable States. These are political games which can be played anywhere.
Secondly Prabhat Khabar group of newspapers had last year published "Jharkhand Development Report 2010". In this 163 page report it had observed that 'Jharkhand has come a long way from its inception'.
The highlights of this report are:
>Its Per Capita income- From Rs 10345 (1999-2000) to Rs 21465 (2008-09). Per Capita income for Bihar was Rs 12643 in 2008-09.
>Gross State Domestic Product up from 4244922 Cr (2003-04) to 6925332.
>Poverty down from 44% to 33.15% (2004-05)
>Law and Order-Considerable improvement- Police strength up from 8930 in 2002 to 29198 in 2007 whereas the figure came down for Bihar from 48968 to 45670 during this period.
>Length of railway lines increased by 7.43% (2001-07) against 0.29% for India and reduction in Bihar.
>Number of pre-college institutions/school increased by 15% between 2002 and 2007.
>Number of Engineering, Technical and Arch Insts tripled and medical colleges doubled while it remained stagnant for Bihar.
>Foodgrain yield up from 1199 kg per hectare in 2001-02 to 1588 kg/hect in 2007-08.

Besides it there is tremendous improvement in health and infrastructural development in the state. The state has got its own High Court now. Ranchi is a buzzing city. Infact you talk to any person from Jharkhand and you will not find a single negative for mid-sized states.

Another report from Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) had observed that 'Jharkhand and Orissa are growing at the fastest pace in terms of their per capita income'.
So I request all those opposed to the creation of viable states to look at the issue in entirety beyond any political or emotional considerations.
3 December 2011

We will find that bigger the state, more powerful the regional party and more its nuisance value. Secondly the focus should be on mid-sized, manageable and viable states, not merely 'smaller'. The relevance of very small states may also be reviewed if required.
As far as North-Eastern States are concerned, the size of these states is not the issue. Issue is bad politics and worst bureaucratic bungling.
And finally brother just think.असंतुलन कब है? जब हम कई 'mid-sized, manageable and viable states' बनाते हैं तब या जब हमारी तीन states 10-10 crore se jyada population wali hon aur 8 states 50-50 lakh se bhi kam. We are already imbalanced. Many a states are already unmanageable. We have to restore the balance.
5 December 2011

facebook discussion: इंसान धर्म बदल सकता है, जाति क्यों नहीं?

2011-12-01T21:16:00.000+05:30

बहुत साधारण से लगने वाले इस सवाल पर जवाब???

क्या हम सच में धर्म बदल सकते हैं?
इसका जवाब निर्भर करता है कि धर्म से हमारा क्या अभिप्राय है. हिंदू, मुस्लिम, सिख, ईसाई... इत्यादि? या हमारी पौराणिक शिक्षा के आधार पर 'नियत कर्म'?

मेरा मानना है कि हमारा व्यक्तिगत धर्म, हमारा नियत कर्म जैसे हमारा पुत्र धर्म, पित्र धर्म, राज धर्म, मित्र धर्म, पति धर्म, पत्नी धर्म, भक्त धर्मं, इंसान धर्म..... इत्यादि वही रहते हैं चाहे हम किसी भी समुदाय, भाषा, देश या मत (हिंदू, मुस्लिम, सिख, ईसाई, शैव, वैष्णव... इत्यादि) से सम्बन्ध रखते हों. हमारे धर्म निभाने के तरीके बदल सकते हैं उनमें कुछ कमी रह सकती है पर धर्म, शायद नहीं बदल सकता.

और जाती?
जाती क्या है और कहाँ तक है? गुर्जर भी मेरी जाती है, क्षत्रिय भी जाती है और इंसान भी मेरी जाती है. जाती का आधार क्या है? कर्म पर आधारित जाती कर्म बदलने पर बदल भी जाती है. एक पंडित परिवार में जन्मा बच्चा अगर फौज में भरती होता है और पूरी तरह से फौज के रीती, रिवाज़, चाल चलन, रहन सहन अपना लेता है तो क्या वह फिर भी पंडित रह जाता है...या क्षत्रिय बन जाता है? ये अपने आप में एक चर्चा का विषय है.
30 November 2011

facebook discussion: मूर्ति पूजा (IDOL WORSHIP) हम लोग परमात्मा की किसी विशेष मूर्ति के रूप में क्यों पूजा करते है?

2011-10-24T21:23:00.000+05:30

Moorti, bells, conch, even temple etc are only aids and are very relevant at a particular stage and one has to out grow these symbols. Problem starts when we get stuck to these aids and symbols and refuse to rise above the same.
Swami Vivekanand once said, 'If a child doesn't go to temple, he should be condemned. But if an old man still goes to temple, he must be condemned too'. We have to evolve and understand when to leave these symbols.
20 October 2011

Why do we bow before an idol when we ourselves are the part of the almighty?...
Well as far as an idol is concerned it is relevant to certain extent. It is a stage in the spiritual journey. At a particular stage we outgrow such symbols and do not need them. But till that stage these idols are relevant. So if they are relevant then we bow just to show our respect, our belief.
Now, if we are part of God then why to bow?
We are part of God but in this form we are not god. We have to realize god through our deeds and thoughts. And till then we must strive to realize our aim and have full respect and full faith in God... in whatever form. And this bowing our head is only indicative of our respect for the almighty whose replica/symbol is this idol.
23 October 2011

facebook discussion: भय बिन होए न प्रीत

2011-10-21T22:53:00.000+05:30

Fear is a base instinct. It manifests at the basic stage of anything. At basic stage of knowledge, growth, evolution etc. Fear is born out of ignorance and weakness only. And that can be overcome through knowledge and strengthening oneself. It vanishes as we gain awareness, strength etc.
In the initial stage may be love, affection or devotion is out of fear, as said by Goswami Tulsidas, but real love would survive only when there is no fear and only affection and understanding.
Based on this criteria, I agree with the view that "Bhagwan Ram ko koi bhay nahi tha". Yes he was concerned and cautious at times but there was no fear.
20 October 2011

facebook discussion: माता सीता का दूसरा वनवास........

2011-10-13T00:28:00.000+05:30

सदियों से बड़े बड़े ज्ञानियों व धर्म के मर्मज्ञों द्वारा भगवान श्री राम को मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम माना गया है. तो हम कुछ हद तक ये मान कर चल सकते हैं की इस episode में भी भगवान राम ने धर्म की पूरी मर्यादा रक्खी होगी. मगर कैसे? ये समझने वाली बात ह...

ै. क्योंकि जब तक हमें वह बात पूरी तरह से समझ नहीं आ जायेगी ये शंका मन में रहेगी ही और ये सवाल या लांछन भी लगते रहेंगे की एक पुरुष प्रधान समाज ने या एक 'कानों के कच्चे राजा ने’ अपने सिंहासन व आराम के लिए अपनी पतिव्रता पत्नी का त्याग कर दिया.
अयोध्या वापिस आने के बाद मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम श्री राम के पास क्या-क्या विकल्प थे?
१. राजमहल में आने के बाद समाज के सवालों और शंकाओं को दर किनार कर राज भी रखते और माता सीता को भी साथ रखते, या
२. माता सीता के प्रति अपना प्यार, श्रद्धा और जिम्मेवारी दिखाते हुए राज पाट को तज देते और माता सीता के साथ रहते, और या, जैसा कि उन्होंने किया
३. राज महल की जिम्मेवारियां निभाते और सीता माता को तज देते.

विकल्प न.१ सबसे आसान और फायदे वाला होता मगर ये धर्म और समाज की सब मर्यादाओं का उलंघन होता. जैसा की बाद में प्रचलित भी हुआ, "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" यानी राजा की पत्नी (या उसके सभी associates) भी गलत काम करने के शक के दायरे से बाहर होनी चाहिये. श्री राम राजा रहते और पूरी पवित्रता के बाबजूद उनकी रानी माता सीता पर कोई उंगली उठाता तो ये राज महल की गरिमा, sanctity, मर्यादा के खिलाफ होता. तो यह विकल्प तो मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम राम बिलकुल विकल्प मानते ही नहीं और इसे एक अधार्मिक, असामाजिक कृत्य की तरह मानते. यानी ये साफ़ था कि राजमहल और माता सीता अब साथ नहीं रह सकते थे. या तो श्रीराम व माता सीता दोनों साथ राजपाट से दूर रहते या फिर राम जी राज संभालते और सीता मैय्या दूर रहतीं.

तो फिर दूसरा विकल्प था अपने निजी और पति धर्म का पालन करते और सीता माता के प्रति अपना आभार और प्रेम प्रकट करते हुए श्री राम राजपाट को त्याग देते और सीता माता के साथ रहते. मर्यादा कि कसौटी पर यह भी एक पूरी तरह से धर्मसम्मत कार्य होता और श्री राम तब भी मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम ही कहलाये जाते.
और इसी तरह से तीसरा विकल्प भी पूरी तरह धर्मसम्मत था. यानी राजधर्म का पालन करते हुए राजा को किसी भी ऐसे व्यक्ति से सम्बन्ध नहीं रखना चाहिए जिस पर कोई भी, विपक्ष समेत, शक की उंगली उठा सके. एक बहुत लंबे समय सीता माता श्री राम के दुश्मन के कब्जे में रहीं तब, इस के बाबजूद कि खुद दुश्मनों ने माता सीता की पवित्रता के गुण गाये, समाज के लिए एक शंका का विषय था.

श्रीराम के पास चुनने के लिए राजमहल और अपना निजी परिवार का विकल्प नहीं था, श्रीराम के सामने सवाल था अपनी निजी जिंदगी और १४ वर्षों तक उनके साथ रही उनकी पत्नी के प्रति उनके कर्तव्यों व जिम्मेवारी का तथा १४ साल तक उनके इन्तेज़ार में उम्मीदों के साथ उनका स्वागत करने वाली उनकी प्रजा के प्रति उनके कर्तव्यों व जिम्मेवारियों का. सवाल राजमहल के आराम का नहीं था सवाल राजमहल की power का नहीं था, सवाल था सिर्फ जिम्मेवारियों व कर्तव्यों का.
चयन करना था सिर्फ माता सीता और पूरे देश की जनता के प्रति उनकी जिम्मेवारियों के बीच.

और यहाँ पूरी जनता के सामने श्रीराम ने अपनी प्राणों से प्यारी माता सीता का त्याग करने का निर्णय लिया और एक उच्च कोटी का बलिदान दिया क्योंकि उनकी नज़र में १४ साल तक उनका इन्तेज़ार करने वाली जनता का प्यार, उम्मीदें, भावनाएं व कल्याण सर्वोपरि था. माता सीता को अलग कर माता सीता को जितना दुःख हुआ उस से कम दुःख भगवान राम को भी नहीं था मगर भारी मन से उन्होंने ये निर्णय लिया.
मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम भगवान श्रीराम सच में एक आदर्श पुरुष थे.

October 12, 2011

fb discussion: भरत और लक्ष्मण मे कौन महान भाई था और क्यों ?

2011-10-08T18:28:00.000+05:30

भाई का सवाल सच में बड़ा गूढ़ है. लक्ष्मण या भरत? चुनाव कठिन है. भगवान राम जब वन को चले तो भरत वहाँ मौजूद नहीं थे. लक्ष्मण जी थे और उन्होंने मौके पर बहुत बड़ा त्याग का उदाहरण देते हुए राजमहल को छोड़ श्री राम के साथ वन जाने का निर्णय लिया. मौके पर एक निर्णय लिया और पूरे १४ साल उसका पालन किया.
भरत ने अपनी वापसी पर श्री राम को वापिस लाने का निर्णय किया. श्री राम नहीं आये. भरत वापिस आये मगर उन्होंने राजपाट त्याग दिया.
भरत या लक्ष्मण दोनों ने त्याग किया. किसका त्याग बड़ा, या कहें मुश्किल था?

लक्ष्मण ने श्री राम का साथ पाने के लिए राजमहल का त्याग किया.
भरत ने श्री राम का साथ न पाने के साथ साथ राजपाट का भी त्याग किया.

लक्ष्मण अगर श्री राम का साथ न चुन कर राजमहल चुनते तो शायद जग में बुराई भी मिलती.
भरत यदि श्री राम के उपस्थित न होने पर राजपाट ग्रहण कर लेते तो भी राज्य के हित के नाम पर कोई उन्हें गलत नहीं कहता. मगर फिर भी उन्होंने राजपाट नहीं अपनाया.

इन हालातों के मद्दे नजर मैं मानता हूँ कि भरत का त्याग बड़ा था और दोनों भाइयों के बीच कोई प्रतियोगिता न होते हुए भी कहा जा सकता है कि भरत महान था.
7 October 2011

लक्ष्मण जी के पास एक बार निर्णय लेकर बदलने का option नहीं था पर भरत के पास तो हर सुबह एक नया मौका होता था राष्ट्रहित का सन्दर्भ दे कर राजपाट ग्रहण करने का मगर उन्होंने नहीं किया.
7 October 2011

fbd: Is Rajniti A Solution For All Problems?

2011-09-18T18:00:00.000+05:30

Rajniti is merely a 'System' for governance. And without any system there would only be anarchy ie simple absence of recognized government or political authority. A good political system is very important for governance in any country.

As far as solutions to problems are concerned, it is a very open field. There could not be one solution to all problems. Why only Dowry and Andhvishwas, seemingly politics is no solution for all medical problems too like diarrhea and constipation.

But still good governance can definitely help in solving all the problems be it social, medical or even personal.
A good governance system can promote awareness against social malpractices and can help the society by providing infrastructure, financial and moral support to fight such social problems.
Good governance can help in solving medical problems by instituting a system which produces medical officers and also medicines which will relieve one of his medical problems...

Thus Ratanjeet bhai, I believe though Rajniti IS NOT a solution of all problems but it sure can FIND solutions to all problems that afflict a nation or its citizen.

17 September 2011

राजनीति खुद एक सिद्धांत है और ये दूसरे सिद्धांतों से वैर नहीं रखती. पर हाँ इसके पालन में कई बार कमियां रह जाती हैं जिससे कुछ परेशानियां होती हैं पर वो execution की गलती है न कि principle की.
जहाँ तक राजनीति के कारण होने वाले समझोतों व अन्य समस्याओं की बात है तो भाई मेरा मानना है कि समस्या शुद्ध राजनीती से नहीं है. राजनीति अपने आप में कोई समस्या नहीं खड़ी करती. समस्याएँ पैदा होती हैं या तो जब हम भ्रष्ट राजनीती कर रहे है और राजनीती के सिद्धांतों से भटक गए हैं या जब हम हर चीज़ में राजनीति करने लगते हैं. अगर प्रशासन में राजनीती, यानी alliances, preferences aur opposition etc, मिला दें तो गलत ही होगा. खेल में राजनीति ले आयें तो गलत होगा और समझौते होंगे और सेवा भाव कम होगा. इसी तरह तरक्की, सेहत सभी पर राजनीती मिलाने से गलत असर होगा.
कमी राजनीति में नहीं बल्कि इसकी समझ, इसके पालन और गलत उपयोग में है. सही इस्तेमाल करें तो राजनीती हर चीज़ का हल निकाल सकती है.

17 September 2011

As far as 'hypothesis' thing is concerned, hypothesis is more of an explanation for what is happening whereas Politics provides an outline as to how it is to be done. It is based on certain very well defined principles and norms.

17 September 2011

fbd: Dahej Ki Raajniti

2011-09-10T18:06:00.000+05:30

A 'caste less society' is as vague a concept as, to say, water less ocean.... The Ocean itself is water...................................

Campaign against dowry. But frankly speaking I have still been pondering over 'Dowry', 'Reasonable Gifts', 'Girls Share in Property', etc etc....

Mere criticism will not get us anywhere, CRITICAL ANALYSIS is required to improve.

It was very easy for you to say you are "not so proud of those men who elder to me and my ancestors", but it will take some effort to understand their ideas and concepts about everything we consider as farce today.

It is better first we understand the mechanics of Dowry, Gifts and Property then comment on motives of others.....................

One seems to have taken a pledge that "i will never take dowry and i will also try to stop ppl frm my family and relations to also not do the same". Fine... But what about marriage of your daughter or sister? Can you take a similar pledge here? Say something like, "I take a pledge that i will never give dowry, gift or share of property to my daughter or sister in her marriage".
And this question is open to all who say NO TO DOWRY, if you decide to give any of the three ie dowry, gift, share of property to your sister or daughter in marriage, then please elaborate what would be the norm?
9 September 2011

Whether one will give the share of property or not? Whether one will give anything in marriage or not?
At one place I see one advocating a secret gift in marriage. Why? Why this hypocracy? Say 'yes' to gifts or 'no'. Why 'yes' in public but 'no' secretly? What if your daughter-in-law brings that secret gift in her marriage? Would you accept that?
As I see from one's post one is not averse to the concept of giving something in marriage. What one is against is that show-off and may be that gift or dowry under compulsion beyond one's capability. If yes then say so. It is the problem with our society on this issue. We are not clear what we want to oppose. And when we lack conviction we fail to make others see reason in our arguments. It is just like drinking a 'glass of milk' or taking a 'tank full of milk', pouring some in mouth, splurging and spreading it all over the floor, staining your clothes, making the room messy and all that. What is bad? Drinking milk or splurging? You shout from roof tops against drinking but will not get support because people fail to see logic why you want them to stop drinking milk. You fight against splurging and you'll be overwhelmed by the support you'll get. Fight against show-off, unreasonable gifts/expenditure etc and not against the concept of gift itself. Excess of everything is bad but to save ourselves of the excess we need not discard the whole thing itself. Just stop the excess. Difficult? Well who said social reforms are children's play? It takes a life time to hammer in just one simple concept.

One feels emptiness after quitting caste thing because without getting strength from one's own roots one couldn't make strong relations and connections with people. Today I have friends from all walks of life, belonging to all major religions and almost all parts of the country including North-East and some foreigners too. They know me as Raj Basatta. And no their is no conflict. Why do I have to chose between my caste and my friends. We all happily co-exist.

Not everything oriental is bad. Just see the concept and logic behind it and then take your pick.
9 September 2011

The very Indians one mentioned are the Indians cut-off from their roots, mis-fits in alien cultures whom we want to bring in mainstream. Pizza and Burger are symbolic... not of eating habits but of following the cultures. One is labelled a 'Pizza-Burger' when he identifies more with the western culture than with Indian.............

I had asked about modalities as to how should we go about giving girls their share in property. The query still remains unanswered. Further points about Gifts, secret gifts etc also remain unanswered.

As for the treatment of women in India vis-a-vis Western Countries, the fact remains that America has the highest per capita figure for women related crimes including 'Domestic voilence', 'Rape' and 'murders'. But partner that's not the issue. That is a diversion from real issue which should be avoided on this post and can be discussed separately.

It would be better that we thrash out one topic first before starting other. My previous comment was based entirely on comments earlier on this post. But the specific points still remain unanswered. Repeating EVIL or GOD a thousand times doesn't change the reality. For a meaningful dialogue we have to be realistic enough to analyse properly and graceful enough to accept the facts without any prejudices.
9 September 2011

We are one when matter of reform comes. We should remove all curbs being imposed by society/community and should work for betterment of the community. The youth needs to be guided, supported, encouraged and promoted... both our daughters and our sons.
9 September 2011