Role of religion in a society and fault tolerance.

In this day, when people have started regarding science as their, blatant outspokenness is glorified - (whether it be for a better cause or by one woman mobile republics, that remaining of no consequence) and evangelical atheism is on the rise, religion has been relegated to the poor and lower - middle middle class of the society, it might be useful to understand some role of religion in shaping the society, that too from an engineering perspective. But let me first start with Machiavelli's views on how religion is useful in shaping the society.

Reading from the points Machiavelli makes in the chapter "On the religion of Rome" from the discourses on book one of the first ten books of Titus Livy, which are as follows: (it is necessary to make an attempt to generalize the points and not quote verbatim, since Machiavelli talks from an Italian/Roman perspective which many readers might not follow or find boring.)

1. After Romulus's reign in Rome was over, the Senate elected Numa Pompilius as his successor and Numa introduces religion into Rome to discipline civil society so as to put a fear of God into the people.

2. This facilitated easing of policy execution on the part of the leaders.

3. Citizens then stood in far greater fear of breaking an oath than a law, as though they had a greater fear of God's might than for man's.

4. Religion was useful in directing the armies, in animating the people, in keeping men good and in shaming the wicked.

5. Where there is religion, it is easy to introduce military discipline, but where there is no religion, the latter can be introduced only with great difficulty.

6. Without invoking God, intelligent people have many beneficial things which might not be directly acceptable to the people.

7. Thus, religion introduced by Numa into Rome was one of the primary causes of her prosperity, for that was the source of good laws, which in turn, bring good fortune, and from good fortune results all the good from the institutions of the land.

Along with the above, there is one major sector that religion has a role in, that is, designing the society according to the rules of fault tolerance. Now, what does fault tolerance have to do with it? Well, this is what fault tolerance means. (click) The theory here, is that while you can make an excellent system when you delete any mention of God, the sole responsibility of leading such a system depends on good rule by the ruling class and which over a long period of time, decays since the ruling class will invariably get corrupt with concentration of power in the hands of a cliche. Once the ruling class starts manifesting decay, and licentiousness, the society will start crumbling, for there is nothing to fall back onto (Remember the Sanskrit saying, 'yatha raja, tatha praja' really becomes true in this case, since there is no better ideal available for the people to follow. In case of a pre-existing religion, at least some people will try to emulate the Gods of the religion, and rise above their rulers). This is where fault tolerance comes into play, that the system keeps on running at sub-optimal conditions even when the key dominoes of the system have been withdrawn. This is where Machiavelli too realizes the importance of this concept, but of course, he doesn't call it by this name. As per Machiavelli, welfare of a republic or kingdom lies not in ruling it wisely while the ruler lasts, but in organizing it in such a way that the state endures after he has passed away. And the best effect of religion is here.

The obvious corollaries (my points) that emerge from such a religion would be that -
1) The control nodes of such a religion should rest solely within the state. If the control nodes exist outside, they can lead to external manipulation of a people.

2) The structure needs to be kept decentralized with checks and balances on the powers of each control node, otherwise we have to endure with a parallel power centre apart from the Central Government in the same state.

3) Towards the above end, the religion should be divided into different philosophical schools to not only cater to people of different tastes, but also so that there is constant competition between each school, something that would help each school of thought better itself and its followers. Yet, there should be a common meeting ground of each school rooted in Dharma.

4) The end goal of such a religion should be to make people do good during the existence of a good state, even after the good state has passed, and create a legend that enables the people to resurrect the same state, or resist an imperial power.

As usual, followers are invited to add more to this post.

Organized leadership and ministerial building after elections- The way forward for India?

This post was meant for Independence day. However, owing to some amount of thought that had to go into it to make it possible and shortage of time, it has come several days late.

Before going forward with the topic, I'd like to explain the obvious benefits of an organization to do something, rather than its rules being loose and enforced by a single authority at the top.

A single authority at the top of any institution, who might/might not have any expertise in the service is in most cases a loss to the institution. (By institution, I mean something that provides service to the public for e.g.: police, fire station, etc.) Top-down administration of any institution with full authority vested in the top, even authority to change the laws of an institution means that administration is subject to whims and fancies of the person. If the man at the helm is of high dignity and a responsible person, the system will run well. On the contrary, if he is not so, the system will languish.

An organization on the other hand, has a set of rules and regulations. People once recruited follow these rules and regulations, governed by seniors who are talented persons in that particular field, or who are products of that organization itself. In an ideal organization, with no interference of vested interests and if recruits are only possible at the lower ranks, and if people who have just the right amounts of talent and intellect are recruited, than the organization runs like a mineral refining factory. Raw ingredients in the recruits are made available at the bottom, when people are not found to have prerequisites in them, they are thrown out or stagnate at one particular level, and the people who come to the topmost level of the organization would be the best (well, best at least in that particular organization). A person who has been thus prepared is fit enough to rule the organization. He knows from the very first day of his job how the institution should be run and what it lacks. Thus, there is no on the job training, and complete order in the institution.

Taking this analogy to politics, one can argue that this is the basic difference between a monarchy and a democracy. A monarchy in most cases has been the rule of a family over a people (One exception is the first Indian state established by Raja Bharata after the dasrajana (battle of ten kings) wherein the King chose his successor depending on his fitness). An amendment of the difficulty of family rule of a person not being talented enough to rule can be done by the king having many sons and imparting them training, with the best son being chosen to rule the people. But still, training some person to do something often needs harsh lessons to be imparted. This is not often done in families, since people tend to go soft on their own when they would be harsh on the others for same mistakes committed in training programs. Thus, a system of a chosen one to lead organizations thrives only on luck, in some cases it might work, in some cases it might fail. And such failures can sometimes be catastrophic for the nation, as often seen in the past.

The training to do a task, is best imparted in organizations and not in families. A system of government that is based on an organization rather than family rule is more likely to thrive. Thus, totalitarian (party rule) and democracy usually tend to do better than monarchies which might sometimes last very long, or sometimes last very short. The drawback of an organized method of rule is that a certain dogma gets attached to the system. It gets difficult to change, since change can only happen by taking a certain majority into confidence. This difficulty is absent in a monarchy when all powers are vested in the king. However the benefit is that total buffoons are weeded out at intermediate ranks in an organization, hence chances of a complete catastrophical failure in an organization is lesser than that in monarchies. One can say, that the scales get evenly balanced.

The next step after building an organization is that it should take into account the interests of all the members of the society. A fire station cannot neglect a fire in its own street while sending vehicles to extinguish fire in a far-off place. A police station cannot neglect grievances of a particular class of people. Similarly, a government must take into account the grievances of all the people in order for it to be successful. In it, a possibility lies for the failure of totalitarian type governments when it roots for the betterment of only government apparatchiks, causes organized (i.e. ordered from the top and executed at the fundamental levels to please the apparatchiks) and not organic (make incentives for progress) progress of the people it is meant to serve.

A democracy is thus far, the most progressive form of government. The basic tenet of democracy is that the people decide the leaders. The leaders then move on to form the laws and legislature. They get to rule for a limited span of time, after which they have to go back to the people for a vote. If the people are satisfied with the government, they vote it back. If not, they will vote another political party to power.

On the face of it, it all sounds a very good proposal. However, there is one fatal flaw, the over-dependence of the system on the people. Now, the onus is on the people to be aware of happenings around them in order to operate the system efficiently. Moreover, it is also needed that they be able to see through the malicious plans of the leaders and stop them in their tracks. They need to realize that in order to have long term gains, the nation has to sacrifice some short term comforts. All of the people are needed to realize Kautilya's axiom for the training disciple from the Arthashastra.

"The training disciple is the one whose intellect has the qualities of desire to learn, listening, retention, thorough understanding, reflection, rejection of false views and intentness on truth and not on any other person." Ch. 1.5.5 [1]

In summary, they need to be equipped with cutting edge awareness, think long term and place the importance of the nation above their selfish interests.

This is no mean goal. No people can be readied for the challenges of democracy at short notice. The system gets even worse when corrupt people reach the higher rungs of power. Just one jab at power by vested interests can allow them to divide the people, favoring one section over the other. People, if not sufficiently aware of this game can fall for it and vote those that particularly favor their section of the society. This effect is called vote bank politics. A non-intellectual people will not understand learned men and get thugs voted to the higher echelons of power. The thugs will in turn start a positive feedback cycle and by vote bank politics get more thugs voted to power who will shirk their responsibilities and enter politics only to enjoy the spoils of power. This cycle would continue until: 1) People revolt en masse. 2) The country is destroyed by such shenanigans.

So, if all three forms have flaws, what is the way out?

A possible solution is that leaders, after getting elected should be made to attend an organization that hones their leadership skills. It should acquaint them with the basics of human relations, interactions with industry heads, time management, planning and other similar skills that are required for efficient rule of the nation. People who are not genuine leaders will fall short of these skills and must not proceed to becoming MPs of their elected regions.

It would then be essential that instead of the top, the top few M.P.s of a region need to attend the institution, just in case the winning M.P. fails at the organization. Now, this would undoubtedly lead to some situations wherein a member of a losing party from a region gets through the organization. This could be allowed if the member is indeed a genuine ruler. Or perhaps the party based political system can be suspended so as to avoid such chaos. As of now, it really doesn't matter which party our people vote to power since alliances between the parties are decided by the 'leaders' and not the people. The people might then have to see those people as ministers of some portfolio who belong to the parties they voted out of power!

Another possible problem may erupt as in such an organization may become biased and allow politicians of a particular school of thought up the ladder.

But note that such an organization is at least better than a completely unregulated process of allowing anybody to come to power after being voted by the people.

Lastly, we need to ensure that only the Prime Minister (P.M.) is from the people, while all the ministries should be turned into organizations run identical to PSUs with the leader of the organization heading the ministry rather than some elected person who has little knowledge of operating the field of which he might become the minister.

The ministerial organization must be made to have interactions with leaders in respective fields to allow for suitable acquisition of knowledge from the outside world in order to make decisions effectively. They should be given certain form of autonomy that the members of the parliament apart from the Prime Minister himself do not interfere in their operations. The ministerial organizations need to be subservient to the P.M. building organization so that the P.M. can affect changes in other ministries much easily and lobbyists for certain interests are avoided to come to helm in the ministries.

This way, current ministries can be kept out politics and function independently. As of now, while people can elect their P.M. to power, they do not elect the ministers. The former cherry-picks them to his liking and sometimes to the liking of coalition members of the winning coalition. Newer ministries are created to suit the interests of coalition members. Where is the will of the people in all of this anyway? Such chaos can also be avoided by having pre-established ministerial organizations. It would be less difficult to setup ministerial portfolios in such a situation.

Could a temporary implementation of such a system, a combination of people's will and organized political schools of thought be a solution to our decrepit democracy? Note I mention temporary because maintaining such organizations might be a huge strain on our economy if they acquire high complexity. And it would not be justified to have a permanent system in which the people's will is overruled by them, since the ultimate purpose of any government is to remain aligned with the people. But as long as the people are poor, not sufficiently literate and myopic, a temporary crutches of the kind mentioned above might just be what is needed.

To summarize pictorially, an ideal parliamentary kind of government with lesser number of political parties and in which there is no dabbling of parties into the administration would look something like the pyramid below.

Fig. 1 Ideal type of parliamentary government

When the number of political parties get too many, imagine spheres of varying sizes intersecting with levels 2 and 3 first. The system gets worse when there is a winning coalition instead of a winning party and the spheres start intersecting even at levels 4 and barely touching level 5 meaning that they get much more room to meddle at the lower levels and at least cause some chaos in the functioning of level 5. It gets unstable and might even collapse.

What I propose is that there be another stage between levels one and two that can serve to train the politicians before going further.. so as to refine the quality of politicians going ahead and dislodge the previous level 4 and create level A such that it has no connection to the legislature or any parties, and instead recruits people from professional organizations. This way, we can not only permanently (i.e. as long as the program is deemed necessary) cut off interference from the rising number of parties, but also fine tune the raucous lot from the parties that gets elected at the primary level.

Fig. 2: New kind of democracy

Note: A lot more of the detail may be needed to be developed in the above post. Need some help with the above thesis.

References:
[1] P. Radhakrishnan; Management fundamentals in Kautilya's Arthashastra- II; 2005; 16-22

Quota System: A promise in the way of justice

After many long years, I've started re-exploring the Mahabharata by B.R. Chopra, hoping to get more insights into the intellect and knowledge of our ancestors and their understanding of social issues. And in the very first episode, I felt that I had an experience I needed to share.

Maharaj Santanu of the Bharata clan sees Ganga in a beautiful womanly form and proposes her to marry him. In reply, goddess Ganga asks a promise from him, that he will not stop her in whatever she does.

The promise is granted, and we all know what happens then. One by one, seven sons of Santanu are drowned in the Ganges. Santanu is worried and rushes to his Prime Minister as to what to do. The latter says then:

"Any promise that comes in the way of justice is a curse. You can do nothing but to live it."

We see a similar event in the Ramayana when Kaikeya saves Raja Dashratha's life and is granted a promise to ask whatever she wants.. the result is the expulsion of Ram from Ayodhya.

Today.. we have several such situations when our promises come in the way of justice. The quota system as implemented in India today is one such example.

The purpose of this system was alleviation of the people of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. There was a consensus that there were tribes of people that were oppressed under the infamous 'caste system' of India at the time of India's independence. As a result, the constitution of India granted 15% and 7.5% vacancies in educational institutions and jobs in the public sector. This was meant only for 5 years and the end of that period, the situation was to be reviewed. Not only have the following governments extended this period, they have also failed to review the situation and have also extended the vacancies for other sections of the society.

So does this mean that the vacancies were not applied adequately? Or did the number of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes increased all of a sudden after independence when instead they should have fallen. Thankfully, the SC had imposed a limit on the quota sytem to 50% and so, it has generally not risen beyond that limit. But why was the limit imposed at 50% and why was it not kept at the initial 15% and 7.5% as mentioned above?

Without going into the details of the quota debate, some quick points that have to be made regarding the systems are as follows:

1. Implementation of the quota system would perpetuate the caste system instead of abolishing it.
2. Political vote bank imperatives will lead to the extention of the quota system to other sections of the society.
3. Scams will float to register an upper caste as a lower caste.
4. Would other religions also not ask for a reservation for its own poor and backward castes?

The last point of the above has already bore fruit as Syed Shahbuddin has made a demand of muslim reservations. Would it not be naive to assume that all other religions will not make a demand for their reservations? Would this not also leave a gaping hole in our armour against other evils as proselytism since people can do both, convert to another religion and acquire backward caste status to avail the benefits of the quota system? Where will the buck stop?

Instead we the people of India should propose:

1. That people be evaluated on the basis of their talent and potential for the post they aspire to and not on the basis of their birth.
2. If at all the government wants to support the poor, they should support them with economic incentives, scholarships, etc. instead of affirmative action.
3. If there are any reasons that this cannot be implemented (such as corruption, red tape, etc), we should attack those problems and not shy away from them and implement coward measures as these, since some of these have become general Indian problems.

(Note: Discussing funding issues for some of the above programs is outside the scope of this blog. I will link this post to a post I will make on another blog of mine)

Like the other two cases, the quota system as implemented in India is a promise that comes in the way of justice. The justice that is deserved by the people who toil hard irrespective of the status that has been conferred upon him by birth. Today's India lags behind many other countries in terms of science and technology. Besides, there would surely be many other fields which we will lag behind because of slacking in standards of quality. Who knows how many Aryabhattas, Bhaskaracharyas, Kalidases, Ramanujans, C.V. Ramans we missed because of this system?

Time to uproot this system that is allowing the caste system to thrive and make promises not in the way of justice, but of justice.

Is Maya polytheistic or monotheistic?

Somebody asked this question on www.ask.com. I wonder what he/she meant by it.

Theism by definition is a belief in God.

The prefix poly or mono depends on how many Gods you believe in.

Maya means illusions or ignorance.

So, is there any relation between theism and maya? I do not see any but if there is any, I am open to answers and opinion. Let's flag off a discussion on this topic.

Maya-2: The fight against lust

A key factor generating Maya or illusions is lust. Lust, for money, power, prestige and so on are a key factor in degradation of once powerful societies, and their eventual conquest and extermination by barbarians with little social values standing at the gate. They too are guided by lust, a lust for the riches and booty that a rich society can give.

But there is a difference. The barbarians have some sort of unity between them. They are united by their lust for the opponent's wealth. On the other hand, the opponent, the rich and powerful society has fights in between itself. So, it's house is divided.

Sounds familiar?

Sounds like current affairs?

It should. The same situation has played over and over, generations after generations, centuries after centuries, millenia after millenia. It seems that mankind can never permanently evolve beyond a particular stage. The end of times (good/bad) also seems to be a rule along with the ultimate truth in the world.

Avoiding lust is simple. We must be able to draw a line, between what we can achieve, how much to achieve so as to be able to live a comfortable life without damaging the self, or the fabric of the society. For if the lust to get wealth or power grows beyond a certain extent, it will start affecting the society. It starts coming in the line of duty, and when duty is neglected for one's greed, the system starts to fail.

Breach of duty doesn't happen all of a sudden. And so doesn't lust. It happens unknowingly. It starts with a trickle. Say, one day a policeman happens to spend his day's earnings from the police station on booze. He needs to give the same amount of money to his wife who was expecting to buy something that day. He's in a fix now. For once, he accepts a bribe from a person who breaks a rule and sets him free. The cop gets the money, gives it to his wife . Case closed.

That is if he feels guilty for what he has done. The chains of duty are sometimes very feeble on people. It involves sacrifice, selfless labor, doing that extra hour to ensure that something has been done correctly. In comparison, breaking the call of duty is so attractive and soothing for the mind. Once greed/lust has been tasted, it keeps growing until it devours the man as a whole. If this is replicated on a larger scale, the whole society is at stake.

A second place, apart from the specimen of corruption described above, where lust is particularly discerning is Indian politics. It is known by all that for far too long, politicians have indulged in the lust for the power. Coalition politics is a natural outcome of this lust. Parties with like ideologies but differing in matters of governance unite after the elections to form the government. In this, they let governing the nation on the backburner. Policy making becomes insanely difficult since the policy has to cater to all the members of the coalition. Time taken to form the policy also increases dramatically as a result. Moreover, ideologies of political parties that are not the interest of the majority populace of the nation are enforced into decision making only because that party has got some seats in the Lok Sabha. Another place where one finds lust in the 'largest democracy' is when we find regional parties mushrooming in states instead of having few large national political parties that rule the nation.

These regional parties are (IMO only) born when a national party doesn't give local candidates a preference over their loyalists. Again, lust for power and nepotism from the national party come into question over here. Now what happens is that the regional party might not have very vast resources compared to a national party with nation wide reach and a larger number of fund-raisers. So how do they set out getting votes? They then resort to caste based politics by propping up somebody from a majority caste of the region. Caste issues then triumph over public issues. Throw in religion based politics, quota demands, and voila! we get a lip smacking recipe for disaster.

These are the enemies within the Indian state that our nationalist minded folk have to root out. We might explore the solutions for the above impasse in another post.

As far as barbarians at the gate are concerned, India is safe only as they have their own troubles to tend to. The moment they convince each other to unite for the booty, for our resources, we'll be done.

Consider as well the following dialogue between Shri Krishna and Arjuna about solving the problems of lust. The focus is on controlling the senses, knowing that mind and intelligence are above the senses. I wish that no call of duty is averted just for the short term comfort of the senses. It would only bring long term disaster.

1)

Chapter 3:
३६
अर्जुन उवाचा
अथ केना प्रयुक्तो ’यम्
पापं करती पुरुषः
अनिच्चान्न अपि वर्स्नेया।
"Arjuna said: O descendant of Vrishni, by what is one impelled to sinful acts, even unwillingly, as if engaged by force?"

३७
श्री-भगवान उवाचा
कम ऐसा क्रोध ऐसा
रजो-गुना-समुद्भावः
महासनो महा-पाप्मा
विद्ध्य इनाम इह वैरिनाम।
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world।"

३८
धुमेनावृयते वह्निर
यथादार्सो मलेना का
यथोल्बेनाव्रतो गर्भास
तथा तेनेदम अव्र्तम ।
"As fire is covered by smoke, as a mirror is covered by dust, or as the embryo is covered by the womb, the living entity is similarly covered by different degrees of this lust।"

३९
अव्र्तम जनानाम एतेना
ज्नानिनो नित्य-वैरिना
कम-रूपेण कौन्तेय
दुस्पुरेनानालेना का।
"Thus the wise living entity’s pure consciousness becomes covered by his eternal enemy in the form of lust, which is never satisfied and which burns like fire।"

४०
इन्द्रियानी मनो बुद्धिर
अस्याधिस्थानाम उच्यते
एतैर विमोहयाटी ऐसा
जनानाम अव्र्त्य देहिनाम।
"The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust. Through them lust covers the real knowledge of the living entity and bewilders him."

४१
तस्मात् त्वं इन्द्रियान्य आदौ
नियम्य भारतार्सभा
पाप्मानं प्रजाही ही इनाम
जनाना-विज्नना-नासनम।
"Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bharatas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin [lust] by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self-realization।"

४२
इन्द्रियानी परानी अहुर
इन्द्रियेभ्याह परम मनः
मनसस तू पारा बुद्धिर
यो बुद्धेह परतास तू सह।
"The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence।"

४३
एवं बुद्धेह परम बुद्ध्वा
सम्स्ताभ्यात्मनाम आत्मना
जाही सत्रुम महा-बहो
कम-रूपम दुरासदम।
"Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to the material senses, mind and intelligence, O mighty-armed Arjuna, one should steady the mind by deliberate spiritual intelligence [Krishna consciousness] and thus—by spiritual strength—conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust."

Its maya all around.

Maya. Illusion. The very word we want to avoid, yet get trapped in. Maya arises from ignorance of the real world, and us believing what we are told to. The dictionary meaning of the word maya comes out as:

maya
n. Hinduism
1) The power of a god or demon to transform a concept into an element of the sensible world.
2) The transitory, manifold appearance of the sensible world, which obscures the undifferentiated spiritual reality from which it originates; the illusory appearance of the sensible world.

Sometimes I feel, that the whole world lives on Maya. Following are two kinds of maya I wanted to stress on relating to current events in the world:

(A). Maya is the opium, that lulls us into thinking that all is well, that we can handle this life very easily. Time passes, nothing happens for a while, and then.. Bang! one catastrophe comes by and we wake up from our sleep. We realize that our ways were wrong and we need to amend them. Finger-pointing takes place, heads roll, correction protocols are established, the problem is rectified, and things start working.

But will this be the last time a catastrophe happens? No.. for with times of peace, people's intellect is again lulled into thinking that all is well. Maya strikes his/her velvety arrow into people's heads, soothes them, relaxes them, tells them that that evil man/woman/disease/problem is gone and all is now well. But for how long? Nobody thinks about that.

(B). The bottom line is, that the 'maya' is caused by a false sense of safety and comfort that most (all?) people get into. But apart from the above, there is another kind of 'maya', the maya that arises from despair, the maya that takes the form of intense paranoia of the stranger. This maya arises when everything is going wrong, and we still don't know what is happening. It arises because mankind has an extraordinary urge to simplify things for himself. When we write numbers in decimals, we strike off the third one. At best we would be striking off the fourth or the fifth one. It ain't going any further for us. When we are adding one to a very great number, we might neglect one sometimes. Assumptions are also made in science to make things simpler, and better for the quirky human mind. And now when things start getting complex, he is in a twist, possible theories keep mounting. He can't get the solution, for he can't understand the problem without simplifying it. In this frenzy, knee-jerk reactions are bound to occur, as man starts knocking off things on a random basis. Enemies morph into friends, and friends into enemies.

For example, under normal circumstance, when there is a lack of evidence of a crime, we let go of the person, perhaps warn him of the consequences of trying it out again and so on. But there is a group of people, who are so mentally sick and tired of their own failure in their lives (or who indulge in this because they are paid for it.) that they would slur the system for it. The more such rabble is piled on the system, the more ineffective it becomes. Not directly, as professionalism of the professional remains intact no matter what is being said about him.. but in terms of trust. The above said people follow the apothegm of - "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth." And as trust of the system corrodes, people grow more mistrustful of the institution, although there are only a few bad apples. Heck, even if there are more bad apples, loss of trust would mean that even if there is one good person, people will avoid the system and not engage it even if it is needed.

And then, when real catastrophe occurs, we have utter chaos. Now the people don't know whom to trust, where to hide their crown jewels. Whom to speak for, whom to speak against? They are lost.. until there come a time when they start reforming the system on their own, trying to take on the enemy, both within and outside, by themselves instead of cribbing about both at the same time.

Can you recognise the two places in (A) and (B)? (A) is the rest of the world, that maya is the 'normal' maya, that which may arise from success. (B) are places like India, this maya is of despair, where the government is of the mob, looting people of opportunities along with money, and in return, giving nothing. The 'real catastrophe' that I am talking about in the last para of (B) is the recent attack on Mumbai.

Besides, here are some of my observations of what miscellaneous illusions the people of the world are in today:

1) The government of the country really really cares for them and will go out of its way to support the people, without there being any pressure on them out of pure nationalistic spirit.

2) That by not going out to vote for a candidate, they are showing their resentment against the system.

3) That by going out to vote, they have finished their responsibility and can go around their daily lives with heads held high and strutting their stuff.

4) That by being good, ill - fate will not befall them.

5) That appeasing violent rageboys, they will solve the problem.

6) That the righteous always deserve to win, with no thought of what kind of tactics are needed.
etc.. etc..

A few choicest quotes from the BG on maya and its effects.

Chapter 14:
५

सत्त्वं राजस तम इती
गुनाह प्रकृति-संभवः
निबध्नन्ति महा-बहो
देहे देहिनम् अव्ययम

"Material nature consists of three modes—goodness, passion and ignorance. When the eternal living entity comes in contact with nature, O mighty-armed Arjuna, he becomes conditioned by these modes."

८

तामस त्व अज्नना-जम विद्धि
मोहनं सर्व-देहिनम्
प्रमादालस्य-निद्रभिस
तन निबध्नती भरता

"O son of Bharata, know that the mode of darkness, born of ignorance, is the delusion of all embodied living entities. The results of this mode are madness, indolence and sleep, which bind the conditioned soul."

This is how maya was defined by the great Seer of the Bhagwada Gita.

So, how do we solve maya? By definition, it comes by ignorance. And the cure thus lies in removing ignorance. Spread of knowledge, a clear demarcation of how much we can tolerate, and rising up ourselves to correct things on our own if our legal appointees are not upto the task are but a few steps. Consider the 11th from the same chapter.

११

सर्व-द्वारेसू देहे ’समं
प्रकासा उपजायते
जनानाम यदा तदा विद्याद
विव्र्द्धाम सत्त्वं इत्य उत।

"The manifestations of the mode of goodness can be experienced when all the gates of the body are illuminated by knowledge."

And we should not wait for any auspicious occasion to start our plans. The time is right here, right now. As has been repeated in the Gita, that all has been decided by the Almighty already, we just need to get up and be his tool.

And ISRO continues to leap ahead.

This blogger, being of a slightly pessimistic variety had held back from the fireworks that gripped the nation as India achieved this feat. But with news of its success coming by, I just could not hold back. Perhaps this is OT, but still trying to blend it in with some Gita quotes.

Chapter 17:
११

अफलाकंक्सिभिर यज्नो
विधि-दिसतो या इज्यते
यस्ताव्यम एवेति मनः
समाधाय सा सात्त्विकः।

"Of sacrifices, the sacrifice performed according to the directions of scripture, as a matter of duty, by those who desire no reward, is of the nature of goodness."

I shall now explain to you how ISRO would serve humanity in India and the world, through the Chandrayaan-1 without having any regard for themselves (i.e. the scientists.)

Introduction: The Chandrayaan-1 (translated as Moon Vehicle), is India's first mission to the moon. The unmanned lunar mission includes a lunar orbiter and an impactor. It was launched from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Pradesh on the 22nd October 2008 and inserted into lunar orbit on the 8th November 2008.

It has high resolution remote sensing equipment for infra-red, visible and soft and hard X-ray ranges. It carries five ISRO payloads and six from foreign space agencies, like the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Association), the ESA (European Space Agency) and the Bulgarian Aerospace Agency.

Objectives:
1) Mapping lunar surface for chemical elements and 3 dimensional topography.
2) The impact of a sub-satellite (Moon Impact Probe) on the surface of the moon to get data for future soft landings on the moon.

Other Technical details can be found here:

In return, our scientists get one-eighth of the salary at NASA. Reports say that this is one of the major reasons why India has been able to get cost competitiveness in the space sector. Plus, people should be more grateful to these scientists, as they have not ditched their jobs and gone for other high paying sectors.

The fruits of their labour will entail discovery of several minerals such as iron, magnesium, aluminium, thorium, uranium and even the discovery of helium-3, which is said to be a clean nuclear fuel able to be used in fusion reactors. And there is said to be an abundance of helium-3 on moon, to such an extent that can power the earth for 200 years.

Even for such an important contribution to the society, the ISRO scientists are offered a paltry Rs. 31,000 at entry level posts, Rs. 60,000 at mid-level posts and Rs. 70,000 at high level posts of director and above. (ref.) Which means that while a businessman who has studied much less, and toiled a lot less than a scientist and carries little weight of the country's pride on his shoulders can have a shot at being a millionaire/billionaire, while our scientists are doomed to a middle-class life no matter how much hard they work and no matter how much of the country's esteem is based on their shoulders. All this just because of their love of science and technology.

In comparison, the NASA scientists have an average salary of $88,000 (link). Yet we have PIOs and Indian space scientists working in foreign space agencies flocking to India to work here (link). Now it would be against the intentions of the blog to discourage young Indians from working in ISRO and ditching India, but for the average Indian, I think making such a comparison helps in garnering more support for ISRO, and be more appreciative and grateful of the work (rather service) these scientists do for India.

Hats off to ISRO, you guys there sacrifice your life for a thankless world, and satisfy the definition of a good sacrifice as mentioned in the Gita. But I hope there is a significant section of the society, me included that is grateful to you. Keep up the good work, you have a long way to go (link)..

Some pics:

Pic 1:

Pic 2:

Pic 3:



Other Images: [1,2,3,4,5,6]

Idol Worship? Nothing better to fight against??

I don't know why time after time, centuries after centuries and even right now, people have problem with idol worship. Many of us are appalled by the death and destruction that the word God has caused and might even consider ourselves agnostics/atheists, but there are many still (including yours truly) that hold Him in higher esteem than any other human. For our sake, we say this:

Chapter 12:
२

श्री-भगवान उवाचा
मयी अवेस्य मनो ये मम
नित्य-युक्ता उपासते
श्रद्धया परयोपेतास
ते में युक्ततमा मतः।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect."

३-४

ये टीवी अक्षरम अनिर्देस्यम
अव्यक्तं पर्युपासते
सर्वत्र-गम असिन्त्यम का
कुता-स्थं अकालम ध्रुवं।

संनियाम्येंद्रिया-ग्रामं
सर्वत्र समां-बुद्धयः
ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मम एव
सर्व-भूत-हिते रतः।

"But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me."

If not at a human form of God, what is the common layman assumed to imagine, when he worships of God? An idol is precisely that, a medium that a common man can use to imagine God. I have never undergone this experience, but those who do, may drop a few lines. I would like to explore the philosophy of the 'others' who hate idolaters.

But at the same time, the beauty of Ancient Hindu philosophy is that it allows another side of the spectrum that supports worship of the unmanifested as well. OTOH, consider what St. Francis Xavier, in whose school I might have ended up studying if I were richer has to say about us idolaters:

"When I have finished baptising the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters."(from The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, 1993, pp 117).

(reference link)

People have continued denigrating humanity in the 21st century by getting itchy over all art forms and having problems with any form of humans in art.

It would be interesting to understand the working of the human mind, when two sections of the society can have such different schools of thought. What can be the reason for exclusivist thinking of more than half of humanity? Why has human philosophy reached such a nadir after levitating to such heights under Indian philosophy?

We need to get our act together and get over our petty feuds and be ready for greater challenges in this world, such as greenhouse effect, avoiding a nuclear fallout, combating diseases and so on. The lessons of Gita are for all humans, irrespective of size, color, nationality, etc.

Proselytisation-2

Well, it's veterans day over here today, and got time to crack some knuckles and begin typing a post, which might take me a few days to complete.

In reply to my last post, one of the blogs co-contributors wrote on October 21, 5:48 a.m.

"So whats the underlying problem?
Where does this proselytisation ultimately lead us to?
Why should we be wary of it?
Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?"

You have not dwelt on these questions. Please consider them as well."

Time to type something out on them.

Q 1. So what's the underlying problem?
Ans. 1. I assume that he is talking about proselytism over here. The idea thrives on two things. Local insecurity of the people targeted, and the ideology of the proselytizer.

It is common knowledge that pangs of hunger, poverty, and disease are too hard to digest for the common man. It is indeed against the morals of the land to abandon the religion and switch onto another. No culture would support that directly. But when in today's morally bereft world, when the rich do not show any inclination to obey the cultural norms and continue their rather rash quest of material advantage and power, and that without facing any physical limitations on their existence, do we really expect the poor and needy to abide by the rules, when there's is a matter of life and death?

Countries and populations cannot survive on just talks on dharma and air. Those times are long gone. Thus, socio-economic welfare for the entire populace, along with physical and mental security should be the key motive of the state. By physical security, I mean security against terrorists and rioting bigots, and by mental security I mean their protection against propaganda spread by foreign agents inside the motherland.

This is where the last post comes relevant. When there is resentment in the society, class conflict gets inevitable. But should this conflict have players other than the local populace affected? Should there directly be any external benefactors of this class conflict? You decide.

Q2. Where does proselytisation lead us to?
Ans. 2 The ultimate goal of proselytisation driven by either religion/personal initiative is deprivation of individual intellectuality. It will give rise to transnational organisations that will be run from a central power center. There will be nations, but the soul of the nations, the independence of the people's mind will be lost.

Well, what after the world has converted to the one true faith, the one honored by God? Shouldn't a boundary-less world be the ultimate goal of humanity?

Yes, but the necessary precondition to this that the individual is left independent to be what he wants to. Is there a guarantee over here that the religious elite seating at the power center of this true faith recognize the problems ailing the people of the other corner of the globe? Our experience is that empires of the state have not been able to do so, which could be the reason behind freedom struggles of the people, and their ultimate victory. And empires of the mind/religion can only do so by making people zombies to their order, incognizant of their individuality, and doing stuff for the elite by misplaced zeal without knowing little of what they are doing. People would end up as willful slaves of the religion. While the elite will enjoy the spoils of this cultural war, the laymen would have the most dogmatic aspects of the religion thrust down their throats.


Q3. Why should we be wary of it?
Ans2. For this, it is necessary to look into the dogma of the religions that proselytise. The dogma that is frequently espoused by the clergy of these religions is that the way of worship of these 'religions' is the best, and the rest need to be saved/killed/etc.

Thus, there is no concern of the law of the land. Whatever way of life exists in one portion of the globe, if it is not palatable to the locals, who viewing the way of life of the outsiders find their ways better, there is always a way to reform the local customs and traditions and take the best of their ways. The abhorable indigenous practices can be removed, while the best can be retained. Common sense says that the ancients cannot be entirely right, in the same way, they cannot be entirely wrong.

This will not be acceptable to the proselytisers. Theirs is a method of either labeling the locals as 'unbelievers' and killing them outrightly, or as 'heathens' and the need to 'save' them. The locals are made to reject their native customs completely, assimilated into the proselytic faith either at gunpoint or allured through fake promises. If at all any attempt is made to legalise native customs, they would be mutated as if to be invented by the proselytisers.

Thus, the eventual aim of proselytism would be to expand the following of that particular faith, at the cost of others. There is no 'live and let live' philosophy. There is always an urge to convert, by both the moderate and the radical even under the slightest of excuses.

In this melee, the native cultures are lost forever. The native faith, which is almost always inclusive in nature, will welcome trojans intoxicated by proselytic faiths. In today's world, with nukes at large and countries spending alot on defense, it would be a massive pain to conquer people and nations by the gun. Instead, nations will get conquered by religion. And the newly converted, will be made to parrot the lines of the headquarters of the religion. Say hello to the new weapon of imperialism, religion.

Q4. Is there any loss to the country, or to the humanity or the world as a whole because of proselytism?
Ans 4. The biggest loss to proselytic faiths is the loss of individuality, the lack of criticism or introspection on the basic tenets of the faith that would allow a process of natural reform, doing which an individual could be ostracized from the community as a whole.

The only way out of this grip of proselytism is spreading awareness about the proselytising faith among the masses. Religion is not what it was in the bygone days. In those days, it could be considered as a set of ethics, which could help govern a society when the state wasn't so powerful.

Today, with less damaging wars to the state (who knows what happens tomorrow, but at least there are not frequent changes to country boundaries and we don't see many grand conquerors rising in today's world except for this last maniac) state rules should suffice to govern the society.

So, then what is the need of religion? Perhaps only to provide ideals of human character and what we should aspire to be. And then, if one religion has those ideals already, why do we need to switch to another? The only reason could be when people are deprived of basic needs or when they are fed false propaganda regarding a faith.

Thus, to fight this renewed scourge, socio-economic reforms of the people is a must. Next step would be to encourage people to read about the new faith and its history before accepting the new dogma. Even then if he wishes to convert, inspired by the new doctrine, he should be allowed to. Blindly mugging people of their local faith without spreading awareness in the lust to increase numbers and region of spread will only lead to greater turmoil.

(Disclaimer: The following are solely my thoughts, which are very very remote from being implemented as law in any place in the world, considering my political inclination, and also the professionin which I am currently embroiled. So the point is, do not lose any sleep on what you may read here, as I am somewhat radical in thoughts. Also, due to some constraints based on the fact that I am an Indian by origin, I will write from an Indian PoV and be a critic of the known proselytising faiths. I have tried to keep it as generic as possible. Again, there is no inspiration from the Gita for this, but in the interest of holding a discussion that started off from some Gita quotes.. am just trying to end what I started.)

Class Warfare and Proselytism - An Explosive Mix

(Taking a jab at what is already known to many.. just for the sake of penning my thoughts. Not naming any religion directly.. so hope no one has a hurt ego, 'coz my points are general in nature.)

So, let us get to the definition of class warfare as per the great learning site:

Class warfare:
"...Class conflict, also class war or class warfare, is both the friction that accompanies social relationships between members or groups of different social classes and the underlying tensions or antagonisms which exist in society due to conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Class conflict is thought to play a pivotal role in history of class societies (such as capitalism and feudalism) by Marxists who refer to its overt manifestations as class war, a struggle that is viewed by them as a product of capitalism..."

and proselytism:

Proselytism:
".. Proselytism is the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion. The word proselytism is derived ultimately from the Greek language prefix 'πρός' (towards) and the verb 'έρχομαι' (I come). Incidentally, proselytism is prohibited in Greece, according to the constitution of Greece. Historically in the New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a person who had converted to Judaism. Though the word proselytism was originally tied to Christianity, it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not. Today, the connotations of the word proselytism are often negative but this article will use the word neutrally to refer to any attempts to convert a person or people to another faith...."

Well, in simple class warfare within a people of the same religious domain, conflict resolution may be easy. That is assuming that both the 'proletariat' and the 'bourgeoisie' have the same cultural underpinnings.

But when another religion starts chipping into the 'proletariat', wanting them to denounce their former religion with false propaganda and try to ally them with the culture of the new religion, especially when the religion is an alien one, things get murkier. For now, the cultural common ground using which a conflict maybe resolved, is lost. The proselytes, aided by the foreign power grow more aggressive in their demands because they do not identify the 'bourgeoisie' as their own. And again, they have found a new entity batting for their interests. Any punishment of even rogue elements among the rebellious proletariat becomes 'persecution of the religion', the proselytes look to the homeland of the new religion for support, and seeing a chance at expanding its power, the foreign country seeks to establish a stronghold in this new land. What was a simple conflict now becomes a clash between two countries.

For those who think that missionaries are right in converting groups of underprivileged people, or even right in converting anybody at all, I have this from the Bhagwada Gita:

Always remember that key emphasis in the Bhagwada Gita is on "Moksha" from the cycles of life and death. Shree Krishna divides Nature into three parts, the good, the passionate and the ignorant. The good get liberated from the cycle of life and death, the passionate return to earth and the ignorant get a lower birth.

Classifying properties attributable to the good.
Ch. 16
१-३
श्री-भगवान उवाचा
अभयम सत्त्व-सम्सुद्धिर
जनाना-योग-व्यवस्थितिः
दानं दमास का यज्नस च
स्वध्ययास तप आर्जवं।

अहिंसा सत्यम अक्रोद्हस
त्यागः शंतिर अपैसुनाम
दया भुतेस्व अलोलुप्त्वं
मार्दवं हरीर अचापलं।

तेजः कसम ध्र्तिः शौचं
अद्रोहो नाती-मनीता
भवन्ति संपदं दैविम
अभिजातस्य भरता।

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor—these transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature."

Thus, if this is good, then my question to people is - what is the need of proselytism? Can't people just tend to be good and spiritual rather than invoking a new God at every available opportunity? We have already divided the landmass of the world into various countries, countries into states, states into districts, districts into talukas (From the Indian PoV - perhaps translatable into counties?) and so on. We have divided water bodies, resources, even air (In times of war, we do talk of this country's airspace and that country's airspace.) We have divided people, into classes, and now, even God among different religions. Such is the arrogance of the human race.

And for the demoniac:
४

दम्भो दर्पो ’भिमानस च
क्रोधः परुस्यम एव च
अज्नानाम काभिजतस्य
पर्थ संपदं असुरिम

"Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and ignorance—these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature, O son of Pritha."

These are the attributes we see in the religion of the proselytizers.. "you believe in false Gods, you worship idols, you worship animals,.. forget that and look at our God".

As far as proselytism is carried out by force, it is certain that that will be opposed by a country's people. What may pull wool over their eyes is when people start converting by allurement.

So, as far as charities given by the foreign missionaries practicing proselytism is concerned:

Ch. 17

२०

दताव्यम इति यद् दानं
दीयते ’नुपकरिने
देस काले च पत्र च
ताड़ दानं सात्त्विकं स्म्र्तम।

"Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness."

२१

यात तू प्रत्युपकारार्थं
फलं उद्दिस्य व पुनः
दीयते च परिक्लिस्तम
ताड़ दानं राजसं स्म्र्तम।

"But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion."

२२

अदेसा-काले यद् दानं
अपत्रेभ्यास च दीयते
असत-कृतं अवज्नतम
तट तामसं उदाह्र्तम।

"And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance."

With this, I leave it upto you to decide what should be our attitude towards proselytism. As far as my opinion is concerned, people should be generally suspicious when some stranger to a country does charity, and preach some alien religion that doesn't arise from the soil of the land, just as we would be suspicious of strangers in general and not get too close to them just because they are showing us some moolah and promise small time benefits.

Take a stand. Protect your land from poachers. It is indeed true that God protects those who protect themselves. But in times like these, it is us too who have to protect God (deities.. to be specific). For without our worship, they will fade into the oblivion. Besides.. I also see it fit to oppose proselytism for the reason mentioned at the start.. that other countries can't get a say in another's sovereignty.

Food! For the Good, the Passionate and the Ignorant.

Shri Krishna classifies nature into three forms in the Bhagvada Gita: the good, the passionate and the ignorant. And in Chap. 17,.. classifies food, sacrifice, prayer, etc. into the three. Here is what the Bhagvada Gita talks on food.

८

आयुः-सत्त्व-बलारोग्य-
सुखा-प्रीटी-विवार्धनाह
रस्याः स्निग्धः स्थिर ह्रदय
अहरह सात्त्विका-प्रियः।

"Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one’s existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart."

९

कतव-अमला-लावानाटी-उसना-
तिक्सना-रुक्सा-विदाहिनाह
अहारा राजसस्येस्ता
दुह्ख-सोकामय-प्रदाह।

"Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease."

१०

यता-यमं गता-रसम
पुती पर्युसितम का यात
उच्चिस्तम अपि कामेध्यम
भोजनं तमासा-प्रियम।

"Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness."

Of the 9th we may agree. As we know from modern science,.. too much of salt can cause high blood pressure, too much of hot food can also cause problems and so on. And I believe the 10th bats against fast food (McD goers, keep this in mind!)

But of the 8th I have doubts, as we know of the current problems that people have with atherosclerosis, diabetes and all.

But perhaps, just perhaps, these lines were spoken in times where people were physically fit and did a lot of manual labor.

One place where I find the Gita doubtful.. and wished to point it out.

It's a grey world.

Friends.. this is a twisted version of an original post made on my 1st blog. Trying to see if there can be any matching between this and the Bhagwada Gita. Please comment honestly if you find it wrong.

IT’S A GREY WORLD

(An interview takes place between Mr. X and Mr. Y. Discussing about some philosophies, they finally come to this topic.)

Mr. Y: So after all these topics.. let's discuss what it means to be a good human being.

Mr. X: Honestly speaking, I don't believe in this nonsense of right and wrong.

Mr. Y: What do you mean? Dharma, Adharma.. all this stuff have no importance to you?

Mr. X: No they don't.

Mr. Y: So.. departing from the event under discussion for a while, would you please allow our viewers an insight into your line of thoughts?

Mr. X: Sure

Mr. X: (Facing the camera) Generally speaking.. there is nothing like right or wrong in this world. All people do what they think is right. Human rights activists, gay rights activists, environmentalists, feminists, evangelists, thieves, murderers, terrorists, rapists.. whatever category that may come to your mind, they will only do what they believe is right.

Mr. Y: So you would club all groups of people into being right?

Mr. X: (Facing the interviewer) Exactly,.. like how would you define something as right or wrong? When we some event in the society.. how do we know which side to take? At this instant, somebody would answer that this is defined in this religious scripture or that. But pray how, did the writers of those scriptures got the idea as to what to classify as right or wrong?

(Back to the camera) The thing is, that this too comes from our selfish mindset of self satisfaction. What I think is that something which is right to us, is something that satisfies us,.. something that gives us pleasure or something that is proven to be good for us. Like, remaining healthy, maintaining cordial relations and so on. Whatever does not satisfy us, does not give us pleasure.. we relegate it to being wrong.

Mr. Y: But religion defines for us these things clearly..

Mr. X: (Interrupts) Remember that almost all major religions were written by consent of the majority of the society.. and most of the religions we see today had started before the advent of materialism. Which is why we see a distinction between our religious ideas and what is required of us in the industrialised, globalized world of today.

And in those days, (before the industrial age) a majoriy of people would have abhorred stealing, kidnapping, telling lies, and so on and so forth. These have been propagated down the generations, although somewhat diluted these days. What we recognize as good today, is nothing but the will of the majority imposed on the minorities or a will of the powerful imposed on the masses. What is bad today is what is/was abhorred by the majority in the bygone days. Heck, most of our constiutional laws are based on ideas of the ancients..

So in a nutshell.. I would say that as far as right and wrong is considered.. there is nothing like that. You cannot divide the world into two parts, white and black.. good and evil respectively. It is all mixed up, in shades of grey. This must be the right way.. for as you see.. both good and evil are selfish forces to some extent or the other. Both are in an eternal struggle, to impose one group's interests over the other. The world is a constant battle of groups with self interests, and this can be easily seen if we remove our rose - glassed goggles.

Mr. Y: So,.. what would you say a common man must choose? You have even nullified the purpose of being good and linked it to selfishness.

Mr. X: To propagate peace and order in the world, I have to say this. Every human is there for a cause in this world. And his choices must serve the cause he intends to live his life for. But at the same time, he must also greet the choices of other humans with respect, and not be intellectually smug about his goodness. Be choosy, of neither goodness nor badness, but only observe the intent. Inspite of different opinions.. he must show love and peace to all humans.. after all, all are made of the same matter but for their views and he should share his views among the deprived sections of the society with an intention of selfless reform without walking over any sentiments. It is after all,.. a grey world.

Epilogue: And then friends.. we come to my favourite shloka again.

२ - ४७
कर्मन्य एवाधिकरस ते
म फलेसू कदकाना
म करमा-पहला-हेतुर भुर
म ते संगो ’सत्व अकर्मणि।
"You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action। Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."

Reflections on the Bhagwada Gita

Departing from the normal line of sermonising.. we wish to present to you something new today..

FAMOUS REFLECTIONS ON THE BHAGAVAD GITA

Albert Einstein: When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.

Mahatma Gandhi: When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and I see not one ray of hope on the horizon, I turn to Bhagavad-gita and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Those who meditate on the Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it every day.

Henry David Thoreau: In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer: The Bhagavad-Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions.

Sri Aurobindo: The Bhagavad-Gita is a true scripture of the human race a living creation rather than a book, with a new message for every age and a new meaning for every civilization.

Carl Jung: The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have been current in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is provided by Plato in his Timaeus in which it states..." behold we are not an earthly but a heavenly plant." This correlation can be discerned by what Krishna expresses in chapter 15 of Bhagavad-Gita.

Prime Minister Nehru: The Bhagavad-Gita deals essentially with the spiritual foundation of human existence. It is a call of action to meet the obligations and duties of life; yet keeping in view the spiritual nature and grander purpose of the universe.

Herman Hesse: The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life's wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.

Ralph Waldo Emerson: I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.

Rudolph Steiner: In order to approach a creation as sublime as the Bhagavad-Gita with full understanding it is necessary to attune our soul to it.

Adi Shankara: From a clear knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita all the goals of human existence become fulfilled. Bhagavad-Gita is the manifest quintessence of all the teachings of the Vedic scriptures.

Aldous Huxley: The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity.

Ramanuja: The Bhagavad-Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna to reveal the science of devotion to God which is the essence of all spiritual knowledge. The Supreme Lord Krishna's primary purpose for descending and incarnating is relieve the world of any demoniac and negative, undesirable influences that are opposed to spiritual development, yet simultaneously it is His incomparable intention to be perpetually within reach of all humanity.

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati: The Bhagavad-Gita is not seperate from the Vaishnava philosophy and the Srimad Bhagavatam fully reveals the true import of this doctrine which is transmigation of the soul. On perusal of the first chapter of Bhagavad-Gita one may think that they are advised to engage in warfare. When the second chapter has been read it can be clearly understood that knowledge and the soul is the ultimate goal to be attained. On studying the third chapter it is apparent that acts of righteousness are also of high priority. If we continue and patiently take the time to complete the Bhagavad-Gita and try to ascertain the truth of its closing chapter we can see that the ultimate conclusion is to relinquish all the conceptualized ideas of religion which we possess and fully surrender directly unto the Supreme Lord.

Madhvacarya: The Mahabharata has all the essential ingredients necessary to evolve and protect humanity and that within it the Bhagavad-Gita is the epitome of the Mahabharata just as ghee is the essence of milk and pollen is the essence of flowers.

Original Article

Well,.. the main reason for posting this article is that apart from the people from whom we expect any comments, there are many more who read the Gita in the recent past.. and it is surprising to see that greats like Einstein, Emerson and Thoreau had also spared time for the Gitopanishad.