Do we have any purpose here?

Newspapers these days are filled with lots of negativity. Sometimes you get numb by the things happening around you, by the things you read or hear. People in their twenties are dying for no reason, some are getting life threatening diseases, accidents, rapes and what not. I am afraid, most of the people are becoming indifferent about these news or just accepting it as part of their routine. You read these dreadful news daily in newspapers, on social media, on news apps but you actually think about it when something happens to the person you really care about.

That makes you think, what was fault of these innocent people? Do we just have to accept the idea of fate? These events lead us to think the suitability of 'theory of Karma’ or it is just a fallacy? Theory of Karma says, whatever action or even thought, good or bad, has a reflection in eternity and it strikes back when the moment is right, in this life or the next.

I wonder, what bad karma that minor girl would have done that she has been raped or that young boy walking on the road and got hit by the car? I refuse to accept the idea called fate. 

The idea of afterlife came in existence to give reason to such horrific incidents. When man did not had answer to these questions, he developed the theory that - innocent people are dying at young age or the young people getting life threatening diseases because some of the things happened in their past life.

Then comes another question in mind, if accidents and tragedies are happening every second, then we, ‘the survivors,' are here for any specific purpose? Has some super natural power has sent us for some purpose?

I feel- NO. There is no purpose. It is the way nature operates. It has no purpose for us. But don't feel bad about it because the good thing is- We, the humans, have developed our own purpose to feel lively; to distinguish ourselves from the animals. It is the ideology that shaped our thinking during the formative years is giving us motive, aim, and ambition in our life. And I feel that is a very good thing that we are enthralled by the motive and living our lives. It is pity that many people are wandering in abyss.  

See lot of poor people around us. Do they have any purpose except survival? Or are they just pawns to serve the materialist, aristocrat loving society? They might be having dream to send their children in good school or see their children becoming the officer, doctor, engineer or many of them might have fear to even see such dreams.

This theory of Karma is good in the sense that it prevents ordinary people from doing morally wrong actions, but I believe this concept is also 'anti-market' or against society based on innovation. If you fail in your adventure, this theory provides you safety value to say that 'Karma is bitch'. Misdeeds in previous life striking me back or any other things weak people say to justify themselves or to make them feel okay about the situation.

It is very important to find the purpose of our life even knowing the fact that nature has not decided anything for us and things are not going to happen by their own. We have to create our own path and we have to guide ourselves to carve the path in right direction. Let fate play its role, and we will play ours.  If fate works for our own good, it is Okay; if it works against us, we will fight.

Peace…

Read More

Irony In Choosing Words

It is very interesting to note how we choose different words (or rather exploit them) for the similar situations. 

Let me tell you few examples.

1) In Indian society, we celebrate 'chastity' of women and 'celibacy' of men but not the other way around. We call Savitri as ‘Sati-Savitri' for her devotion towards her husband; and call sacred vow by Devavrata (Bhishma) as 'Bhishm Pratigya' for his bramhacharya pledge. After he took the celibacy pledge in front of all people, Vyasa says that- immediately the gods above rained flowers upon the head of Devavrata saying, 'bhishmoyam iti abhruvan' (this person is terrible). Indeed, a person who could undertake such a vow of life-long brahmacharya must have heroic self-control. As a result, Devavrata came to be known as Bhishma.

That is why, there is a question in my mind, why not celebrate the chastity of men? Isn't loyalty of man towards his woman important? Or why not celebrate celibacy of women? What about freedom to choose (about which we talk relentlessly day and night)- if she does not want to marry? Why put pressure or force a girl to get married before certain age? Aren't we hypocrite in celebrating one thing but not the other?

I will give you another example.

2) In 11th century, Rajendra Chola, the king of the powerful South-Indian Chola empire, had the powerful navy. He launched series of naval attacks on Sri-Vijaya empire in Malaysia and Indonesia and conquered the territory. We call these attacks as 'conquest'. We usually refer to Mughls as invaders, as Babar came to India from Afghanistan. So why we are so unhappy about 'invasion' by Mughals and happy (or feel proud) about 'conquest' of Sri-Vijaya empire by Imperial Cholas of south-India?

Did you see the wordplay between invasion and conquest?

There nothing to be happy about invasion by Mughals, but at the same time I feel, there is also nothing to be proud of invasion by Cholas to foreign territory. It was just the part of power-game at that time.

Act of showing dis-satisfaction to the government by organizing movements becomes mutiny in the eye of ruling class, and same movement becomes war of independence in the eye of masses. Invasion of one country becomes conquest by another.

Next time, we should be careful in choosing words, shouldn't we?

Peace...

P.S. Thanks to V. D. Savarkar for giving this ‘war of independence’ phrase for 1857 revolt; western historians called it ‘Sepoy Mutiny’

Read More

I Am An Atheist And A Hindu !

(This blog is in continuation of this article)

For many people reading this blog, title is bit confusing or rather a paradox as it seems. How could a person be an atheist and affiliated to a religion? Those from western cultural background find this concept difficult to understand. Let me break it for you.

What I love about Hinduism is its pluralist nature, its vastness and abundance, its diversity or rather vagueness as many people would like to call it and non-adherence to any particular scripture. Complete subordination to any 'holy' scripture restricts free thinking and freedom to question. Hinduism for me is the value system and way of life evolved in this land over a period of time. When I say Atheism, it does not mean non-believing in God but questioning the existence of God, questioning the practises in the name of religion, or any other question which free mind can think of. Many different traditions, thoughts (rather contradictory many times) are allowed to thrive in Hinduism. And that is why I feel I can be an Atheist and a Hindu at the same time.

On Freedom:

One of the defining feature of Hinduism is freedom. Freedom to choose your way of worship or no worship at all, freedom to praise and even criticize Gods, scriptures and rituals. Charvaka questioned the supremacy of Vedas and still we call him maharishi. As Amartya Sen put in in 'The Argumentative Indian’ that, "Indian tradition is the tradition of argumentation." And as a prominent part of this tradition, Hinduism respects rational logic more than scriptures; pursuit of truth over any creed or dogma. Some aberrations had happened during the evolvement of this way of life. But instead of sticking to the books and rules which are written centuries before, this tradition is marching forward and that is admirable. Thanks to the revivalist movements of 19th and early 20th centuries.

On Diversity:

I am compelled to compare Hinduism with pre-independence Indian National Congress party in the sense of its diverse nature. (Don't take it otherwise) In Hinduism, there are innumerable school of thoughts which believe in different things. There are different devotional school of thoughts like Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, etc.; there are philosophical school of thoughts like Yoga, Mimamsa, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Vedanta and even the materialistic theory of Charvaka.

By this analogy, in pre-independence Congress also there were many different political thoughts allowed to be the part of it. Swarajist (Motilal Nehru and C.R Das), Socialist (Jawaharlal and Subhash Chandra Bose), moderates (Gokhale, Gandhi), extremists (Tilak, Lala Lajpar Rai), traditionalists (C. Rajagopalachari, Sardar Patel) and many other, were all part of the single umbrella family called Congress.

Some of these fraction split from the Congress, when they felt that they do not have enough voice in the party and some other fraction split from it when party took strong socialist programme. And that is why defining Hinduism in a single definition (as hardliners are trying to do in the name of Hindutva) will be a mistake.

In Congress, every fraction was trying to dominate inside party, to get the presidential seat, to form the government, to get maximum members in working committee; but today, in Hinduism all traditions and sects are living peacefully without much conflict. Because you belong to any tradition or school of thought, peace is the core essence in Hinduism.

(The Rig-Veda declares: एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति means "Truth is one; learned men call it by various names; The Upanishads declare that all the paths lead to the same goal, just as cows of variegated colours yield the same white milk)

On Evangelism:

What I like about Hinduism is its non-evangelist nature. It does not aim at outer conversion but at inner spiritual practices. If you like something about Hinduism whether philosophy or spiritual practices like yoga, mantra or meditation, just inculcate that thing in your way of living without converting to Hinduism. And also Hindus have freedom to adopt any new thought or thing they find fascinating in other culture or religion. There is no central authority in Hinduism to banish you from the religion or to dictate proper code of conduct. Most number of conquests and deaths happened in the history because of and in the name of the religion. Victors often tried to forcefully convert the religion of people from conquered territory. Where are Zoroastrians in Iran?

For me, a true conversion is a change in faith purely for spiritual reasons that follow from an individual seeking higher truths. And for that, one does not need to formally convert to any other religion. Genuine conversion of an individual happens over a period of time by evolvement of his thought. It can happen for an individual at personal level and not for the entire group. It is very unfortunate that many conversions happening now-a-days are not for change in faith for spiritual reasons but for political and material benefits.

Religion vs spirituality:

Problem with people is that they mingle religion (by religion they mean Gods, beliefs and rituals) with spirituality. It is surely not their fault as every religion is somehow mingled with spirituality. Spirituality signifies the search of truth and attaining the peace of mind. According to this definition, I am surely not a religious person, but a spiritual one.

Should Atheist visit temples?

What I find problem with many people announcing themselves to be an atheist is their hostility towards anything related to religion whether it is worshiping places, monuments or architecture. So, should an atheist visit a worshiping place like temple? I do not visit any temple regularly, but Do I visit famous temples? Absolutely yes. Not only temples but mosques, churches and shrines too. I must tell you, you need not be hostile towards temples even if you are an atheist. Because in Indian tradition, temples are the symbols of creativity, art, dance-forms, music, devotion and architecture. Look at the ancient temples. There are Mandapas (Concert hall) in front of inner sanctum sanctorum. In ancient times, music and dance performances were happening there. Even now, in many parts of the country that happens. Same applies for the mosques. Many mosques are excellent form of architecture.

Bhakti movement in Hindus and Sufi movement is Muslims gave new form of blend to Indian culture and music. Basic principle of this movement was, Music and devotion is the way to reach the God. Both music forms immensely contributed to Indian music. You may or may not believe in God, but it would be foolish to not believe in music. Do not cut yourself from the beauty of some well-designed worshiping place or music for the sake of being an atheist. Do not let your ego (as an atheist) come in between to appreciate the monument if not the sculpture of God(?).

On Mythology:

Being an atheist, you should not distance yourself with mythology, as they are more part of our culture than any particular religion. We have the great epics and mythological stories written in India. Mahabharata and Ramayana are the integral part of Indian society. Whenever we try to use analogy in normal situations, we often look to the characters of Mahabharata and Ramayana. Don't we?

If anyone would ask me one defining feature of Indian culture, I would say -"Storytelling." From centuries, we are telling stories and that became great epics. Mahabharata was an epic which told and retold for centuries by different people. Those who wanted to tell stories, they incorporated their own stories in Mahabharata. And that is why there is no single or original version of Mahabharata. During 400 b.c to 400 a.d, in these 800 hundred years, tells of Mahabharata retold by many people in different parts of India, that they became national heritage of India.

Mahabalipuram Temple, Chennai (Photo Credits: Myself) 

Many artists, carvers found inspiration in the legends of Gods. That is why abandoning the mythology for the sake for being an atheist is foolishness. Take Gods as protagonists of the epics if you are not comfortable calling him/her God. This tradition of retelling of epics is continuing in India even today and immensely contributing to the literature, as we can see from the novels of Amish Tripathi's 'The Shiva Trilogy' , and 'Scion of ikshvaku' or from Shahi Tharoor's 'The Great Indian Novel' or from Iravati Karve's 'Yugant' and books by many others.

Conclusion:

Atheism does not necessarily relate to negativity, so here I presented the positive nature of atheism. Like staunch religious people, supremacist tendencies found in atheists too. Being a supremacist is the cause of many problems world is facing. Practice rationale atheism not an extremist one.

If you do not properly understand what atheism in Indian context is and proclaims to be an atheist with prejudice about religion (not just Hindu religion) in mind, you will end up losing contact with the great cultural heritage, rich mythology, beautiful architecture, soothing music, and great dance forms.

And that is why I am an atheist and a Hindu.

Peace.

#Hinduism #atheism #mythology #temple #religion #INC #Veda #Culture #India #Society

Read More

We Expect Media to be Vigilant Watchdog, Not an Anti-Establishment Hawk

Former President Abdul Kalam once wrote about Indian media - "Why is the Indian media is so negative? In India we only read about death, sickness, terrorism and crime."

Then he went on to tell an experience,

"I was in Tel Aviv once and I was reading the Israeli newspaper. It was the day after a lot of attacks and bombardments and deaths had taken place. The Hamas had struck. But the front page of the newspaper had the picture of a Jewish gentleman who in five years had transformed his desert into an orchid and a granary. It was this inspiring picture that everyone woke up to. The gory details of killings, bombardments, deaths, were inside in the newspaper, buried among other news."

In Indian context, it would be an Utopian daydreaming to expect anything like that from Indian media. But can we at least expect a little bit responsible media?

Let me tell two incidences in last three days.

Two days back, NGT issued notice against Sri Sri Ravishankar's 'World Cultural Festival' event. Condemnation by the media is based on limited information and reports presented to NGT. Art of Living Foundation has rejuvenated several rivers in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil-Nadu, many of which were dried up or contaminated by urban pollution. In partnership with United Nations Environment Programme, Art of living Foundation worked closely to plant nearly 10 million plants in 2 years all over the world. This has been barely mentioned in reporting the news.

It would be a lame argument to say that, earlier they have done good work so the government agencies should not take actions for this incident. But there should be proper assessment of- is there any serious damage to environment and biodiversity. There was not any mention, how this event is going to benefit India to improve hold of its soft-power all over the world, how it going to make India a spiritual destination and improve tourism. And even NGT is giving notice two days before the actual event? Date and venue was known and published in newspapers months before event.

Indian media is very keen to report that black spot ignoring whole white cardboard and if they couldn't find anything with bare eyes, that wouldn't discourage their endeavor to find that spot; they'd rather use microscope. Why is this obsession with negativity I don’t understand.

Another is incident happened yesterday. Media report says, " “We don't recruit Muslims”: Modi govt's Ayush Ministry

Media carried on this story without checking the authenticity of annexure to the original RTI query. What if the news is false? But media already created the animosity in Muslim community about the government. Who is going to do damage control now?

Media is creating an environment, where it seems Indian democracy is on the brink of extinction, which certainly is a lie. Earlier Indian left was showing the anti-establishment tendencies (it still does, but it losing its sheen), now media has taken that role. We expect media to be vigilant watchdog, not an anti-establishment hawk.

It is true that, people are consuming news in today's time as never before. Various apps, social media, online newspapers are becoming a tool to spread news or even brainwash people. We understand, it is simple principle of demand and supply. But in the race to provide first coverage of news, media should not put aside their professional ethics. It is true that in over-enthusiasm of first coverage, mistakes will happen. But what I propose is the same amount of media coverage and people reach to the news when the actual facts unfold.

Peace…

Read More