In the remote villages of this Himalayan valley, polyandry, the practice of multiple men marrying one wife, was for centuries a practical solution to a set of geographic, economic and meteorological problems.People here survived off small farms hewed from the mountainsides at an altitude of 11,000 feet, and dividing property among several sons would leave each with too little land to feed a family. A harsh mountain winter ends the short planting season abruptly. The margin between starvation and survival is slender.

“We used to work and eat,” Ms. Devi said, her face etched by decades of blistering winters, her fingers thick from summers of tilling the soil. “There was no time for anything else. When three brothers share one lady, they all come back to one house. They share everything.”

…

“If you marry a different woman, then there are more chances of family disputes,” Mr. Bhagsen said. “Family property is divided, and problems arise.”

Was this precisely the reality of Draupadi and the five Pandavas? Was her loyalty to five husbands key to them sticking by each other (“paanchon mili to ban gaye mutthi” -Lagaan)?

The article continues to say that the practice of polyandry is now outdated:

“That system had utility for a time,” Mr. Bhagsen said. “But in the present context it has outlived its usefulness. The world has changed.”

Do you agree? Maybe the larger question is, and remains, do we marry for some emotion called love, or for more practical considerations? And if it is the latter, which I am inclined to think (because love can presumably sustain itself without marriage, whereas we look for a lifestyle – a practical consideration – when choosing to marry), then could polygamy/polyandry have some degree of usefulness that we are just not willing to admit?

And what about the moral question of having more than one “jeevansaathi”? What restricts us from having multiple soulmates, or life partners? What makes us uncomfortable about being in a nonexclusive relationship? I would hazard a guess to say it has something to do with having some sort of absolute power and control over another being.  But maybe it is about absolute and equal trust and loyalty, which we cynically believe cannot occur between more than two people. What do you think?

Related posts:

1. Conversion and Polygamy My uncle sent me this simultaneously amusing and disturbing article...
2. Alcohol in Hinduism It can be noted that almost all of the religions...
3. Gender and Misperceptions I was procrastinating and I happened to see this article...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Many of us Hindus, as children, were told (or read ourselves) the basic story of the Mahabharata over and over.  I have taken so much from it, and it has truly affected my perspective on life.  That being said, I cannot truly give the epic that responsibility without studying it more thoroughly.  Before this, I had never read more than a children’s version!  I am sure many of you readers may feel similarly, and so one reason why I have chosen to write about my experiences reading these versions is for you to find one that appeals to you.  I hope that all of you will someday (if you haven’t already) pick up a more thorough version of Vyasa’s story.

Having finished Rajaji’s version, I thought I might share with you all a few memorable passages from it.  (If you’d like to read it yourself, here is an online version, which is only 217 pages!)  What I particularly like about this version (who knows, it may be true with others as well) is Rajaji’s delicate commentary throughout the story.  Sometimes it gets to be a bit too much.  Here is a passage from when the Pandavas are attempting to make peace with the Kauravas while simultaneously preparing for battle:

In December 1941, the Japanese were carrying on negotiations with the Americans and, immediately on the breakdown of those talks, took them unawares and attacked Pearl Harbour destroying their naval forces there.  Drupada’s instructions to the brahmana would show that this was no new technique and that, even in the old days, the same method was followed of carrying on negotiations and even sincerely working for peace, but simultaneously preparing, with unremitting vigour, for outbreak of war and carrying on peace talks with the object of creating dissensions in the enemy’s ranks.  There is nothing new under the sun!

A bit much, right? At other times, Rajaji’s words precisely capture the idea of the story.  He details a side story of a brahmana and a dutiful wife with the following end remarks:

The moral of this striking story of Dharmavyadha so skilfully woven by Vedavyasa into the Mahabharata, is the same as the teaching of the Gita, that man reaches perfection by the honest pursuit of whatever calling falls to his lot in life, and that this is really worship of God Who created and pervades all (Bhagavad Gita XVIII: 45-46).  The occupation may be one he is born to in society or it may have been forced on him by circumstances or he may have taken it up by choice but what really matters is the spirit of sincerity and faithfulness with which he does his life’s work.

There are too many times in the Mahabharata where people clearly make the wrong decision.  Rajaji comments thus:

The Puranas wherein right conduct is always preached, sometimes set out stories in which conduct, not in conformity with Dharma, seems condoned.  Is it right, one may ask, for religious books thus to seem to justify wrong?

A little reflection will enable one to see the matter in proper light.  It is necessary to bring home the fact that even wise, good and great men are liable to fall into error.  That is why the Puranas, although ever seeking to instill Dharma, contain narratives to show how in this world even good people sometimes sin against Dharma, as though irresistibly driven to do so.  This is to press home the truth that howsoever learned one may be, humility and constant vigilance are absolutely necessary if one wishes to avoid evil.

Why indeed, did the great authors of our epics write about the lapses of Rama in the Ramayana and Yudhisthira in the Mahabharata? Where was the need to make mention of them and then labour arguments to explain them away, thereby disturbing men’s minds? It was not as though other had discovered the lapses and Vyasa and Valmiki had to defend their heroes.  The stories are artistic creations in which lapses themselves impress the desired moral.  The parts dealing with the lapses deeply distress the reader’s mind and serve as solemn warnings of pitfalls which wait to engulf the careless.  They dispose the mind to humility and watchfulness and make it realise the need for divine guidance.

The modern cinema also projects on the screen much that is bad and immoral.  Whatever may be the explanation offered by the protagonists of the cinema, evil is presented on the screen in an attractive fashion that grips people’s minds and tempts them into the path of wickedness.  Not so in the Puranas.  Although they do point out that even great now and again fell into error and committed wrong, the presentation is such as to warn the reader and not to allure him into evil ways.  This is the striking difference between our epics and the modern talkies, which arises from the difference in the character of the people who produced them.

Ok, he again goes a little too far in the last paragraph (or sentence).  Rajaji is clearly not of our generation!  But I find the rest of his discussion illuminating.

Rajaji presents an interest view of choices in a chapter on Balarama’s lack of involvement in battle (Krishna’s elder brother is torn between sides and loses all interest in the world):

This episode of Balarama’s keeping out of the Mahabharata war is illustrative of the perplexing situations in which good and honest men often find themselves.  Compelled to choose between two equally justifiable, but contrary, courses of action, the unhappy individual is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

It is only honest men that find themselves in this predicament.  The dishonest ones of the earth have no such problems, guided as they are solely by their own attachments and desires, that is, by self-interest.  Not so the great men who have renounced all desire.  Witness the great trials to which, in the Mahabharata, Bhishma, Vidura, Yudhisthira and Karna were put.  We read in that epic how they solved their several difficulties.  Their solutions did not conform to a single moral pattern but reflected their several individualities.  The conduct of each was the reaction of his personality and character to the impact of circumstances. Modern critics and expositors sometimes forget this underlying basic factor and seek to weigh all in the same scales, which is quite wrong.  We may profit by the way in which, in the Ramayana, Dasaratha, Kumbhakarana, Maricha, Bharata, and Lakshmana reacted to the difficulties with which each of them was faced.  Likewise, Balarama’s neutrality in the Mahabharata war was a lesson.

Perhaps I include these specific passages because I agree with them, but I cannot avoid that bias.  One of the reasons I feel compelled to read the epic in so many different ways is because the story itself appeals to me in so many ways.  For me, the Mahabharata is the truth of life: that we humans are all faced with difficult decisions and we navigate these decisions by following our moral compass, our Swadharma.  That is all we can do to make peace with, and in, the universe.

Related posts:

1. Authentic or Apocryphal? Does it even matter? In one of the discussions with Swami Tyagananda during the...
2. Question of the Week: Are Hindu Epics Literature, History, or Scripture? Ram Navami was this past Friday, and for that reason,...
3. Learning from others Hindu tradition encourages learning from others through things such as...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

• “Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.’ The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors…
• “Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said…
• “India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex…” I know of a few real examples of this myself!

I was curious to hear more opinions on the matter, not just on the specific decision but on the prospect of gay rights in India and how various religious communities are responding.

From the comments on www.sepiamutiny.com:

• “We have not yet heard the last word on this one.  The Mullahs and Bishops of India have not yet spoken.  The views of Hindu religious leaders don’t count any way in the Indian media, but I think they are neutral on this issue… The BJP and VHP can’t speak for Hindus in India.  Their voice doesn’t carry the same weight in the media or in the larger Hindu community, compared to the voices of Mullahs among Muslims.  The voices that carry a little bit of weight among ordinary Hindus in India are those of Hindu religious leaders who are seen as ‘apolitical’.  The Kanchi Acharya, Puttaparthi Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev, Sundara Chaitanyananda, Mata Amritanandamayi et al.  My point was that these acharyas are largely neutral to the issue.” (As an interesting aside, in late 2004, the VHP contended that gay sex causes bodily injury; this was refuted quickly by the Delhi High Court.)

• “While the penalty imposed by Section 377 goes up to life sentence, there is nothing close to it in Manusmriti, the most popular Hindu law book of medieval and ancient India. ‘If a man has shed his semen in non-human females, in a man, in a menstruating woman, in something other than a vagina, or in water, he should carry out the ‘painful heating’ vow.’ Thus, this peculiar vow, involving application of cow’s urine and dung, was meant not only for homosexuals but also errant heterosexuals.  The penalty is even milder if the homosexual belongs to an upper caste. As Manusmriti puts it, ‘If a twice-born man unites sexually with a man or a woman in a cart pulled by a cow, or in water, or by day, he should bathe with his clothes on.’  Since Manusmriti was written at a time when bath generally meant taking a dip in a river or a lake with other members of the same gender, the penalty of making a homosexual bathe without taking off his clothes was probably designed to avoid the embarrassment of his being sexually aroused in public.  In another indicator of the liberal Hindu heritage, Kama Sutra, a classic written in the first millennium by Sage Vatsyayana, devotes a whole chapter to homosexual sex saying ‘it is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.’ Besides providing a detailed description of oral sex between men, Kama Sutra categorizes men who desire other men as ‘third nature’ and refers to long-term unions between men.  I find it interesting that folks who cry foul about Manusmriti’s views on women, then use the same ‘liberal Hindu heritage’ text to support the argument for gay sex. So now maybe Manu may not be all that bad!”

… And from a new site to me, www.galva108.org:

• “Welcome to GALVA-108! This website is provided by the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, an international organization dedicated to the teachings of Lord Caitanya, the importance of all-inclusiveness within His mission, and the Vedic concept of a natural third gender. Its purpose is to educate Vaishnavas, Hindus and the public in general about the “third sex” as described in Vedic literatures. This knowledge will help to correct many of the common misconceptions that people hold today concerning third-gender people (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, the intersexed, etc.). In addition to this, GALVA wishes to provide a friendly and positive-oriented place where third-gender devotees and guests can associate together and utilize their time to learn more about Krsna consciousness and advance in spiritual life.”

It is curious that the LGBT persuasion is considered a “third gender” here.  I wonder if that might be demeaning or frustrating to some, since it separates one from a gender that is equally valid.  (I might note here that there is a difference between ’sex’ and ‘gender’: ’sex’ refers to one’s bodily organs; ‘gender’ describes one’s own preferences.)  Still, this “third gender” remains an interesting interpretation of Vedic texts.

* * * * *

From even a brief look into what Hinduism says about homosexuality, it has become clear to me that there is no clear answer.  I guess that is an overused answer in Hinduism – the flexibility and differing opinions can be both reassuring and perplexing.  Moreover, there always seems to be some sort of divide between the philosophical musings of texts (which often explore less than accepted themes) and the rules and values put forth by religious chiefs and family heads.  That is to say, it is one thing if Vatsyayana discusses same-sex intercourse but quite another if your son is exhibiting homosexual tendencies.  In the latter case, I wonder how much of these rules, implicit or otherwise, derive from practicality: people do not want to attract more attention and judgment and therefore discourage ‘abnormal’ practices.  A good example of this is in the recent Bollywood movie Fashion, in which one of the characters is a successful gay designer who chooses to marry a woman to please his mother (the film is quite good in general and is worth the three hours).

One of my favorite examples of homosexuality and Hinduism is from a book (for a teenage audience) I read in the beginning of high school, Born Confused by Tanuja Desai Hidier.  Dimple, an ABCD and rising senior in a New Jersey high school, is (perhaps understandably) surprised to find out that her fob-Indian cousin studying at NYU is a lesbian.  However, she discovers that her parents already know and have passed no judgment whatsoever.  They have, nevertheless, been scouting out Indian boys for her.  It is only after questioning their intentions that she realizes the meaning of ‘jeevan-sathi’: ‘life companion.’  The Hindu (or Indian? correct me if I am wrong) concept of jeevan-sathi implies no specific gender or type of relationship.  It is interesting to note the commonness of this term as opposed to others.  In the English language, we certainly distinguish ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ and words like ‘partner’ or ’spouse’ are meant to be politically correct.

I am eager to hear readers’ perspectives on homosexuality and Hinduism and/or homosexuality in the subcontinent.  How [does it/should it/will it/can it] fit in?  I feel like a particularly biased and uninformed writer on this point because I’ve grown up in a liberal home and community and have little experience with or knowledge of integrating these two themes.  What do you know, and what do you think?

Related posts:

1. The task that faces us Hinduism has always been a geographic faith, tied to South...
2. Gender and Misperceptions I was procrastinating and I happened to see this article...
3. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism? There is an interesting article on About.com on the similarities...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A sizable part of my maternal family has roots in BAPS, and so for most of my high school years, we went to the Edison BAPS mandir, albeit irregularly.  My experiences there were mixed; on the one hand, everyone was extremely welcoming and caring, on the other, I sensed quite a bit of sexism within what was deemed tradition.  Women and men prayed, ate, chatted, and studied in separate sections.  When the modern leader of the international organization, Pramukh Swami Maharaj, came to visit the Edison chapter, my father and brother were given the honor of meeting and shaking hands with him, while my mother and I remained in the back section throughout the Swami’s lecture.  Of course, my limited experience with the organization gives me little authority in speaking about its practices — I do not know enough about their good works; conversely, I am not familiar with all of practices that I would probably label backward.

Therefore, in hearing about showing of Mystic India, I was curious to see whether or not a religious bias would dominate.  Although the cinematography was all that reviewers said it would be (after all, it was an OMNI film, and we are talking about an undoubtedly gorgeous and colorful India), the story and message was less than inspiring.  What was supposed to be a rediscovery of India was a one-sided tale of the founder of the Swaminarayan faith, Neelkanth.  Even the portrayal of India was skewed — the filmmakers chose to ignore all of India’s highly apparent problems and present the country as a land of festivals, diversity, equality, harmony, and meditation.  Moreover, the film did little to explain the origins of India’s culture and traditions, instead accepting them as an inevitable part of a paradise of sorts.  On the website itself, India is called a “nation of silent spirituality.”  From my experience, however, India is anything but silent.  It is one thing to praise these various aspects of India; it is an entirely different thing to focus only on a single faith and the superior features of a culture and label it all of “India.”

What is especially disappointing to me about the film is how the makers chose to take the opportunity to create an unprecedented experience of India for viewers around the world and turn it into an obvious plug for the Swaminarayan faith with a biased perspective of India itself.  There is no doubt that the support for the film by BAPS, an organization with a fair amount of political and economic clout, was essential.  However, it is a shame that what I thought would be an OMNI film on India (a chance that we will probably not have the financial means to repeat anytime soon) turned out to be a misnamed BAPS promotion.  My ambivalence about BAPS was augmented by the last panorama shot, which was of a giant crowd of men holding candles around Pramukh Swami Maharaj while Peter O’Toole discussed the diversity and equality that is India today.  If the makers were intending to create a film about the Swaminarayan faith in India, then they could have done a better job of making that specific goal clear in the blurbs and of portraying a less romanticized and more realistic India.  Instead, the movie swarmed with unmerited generalizations.

On the bright side, it seems as though the film will do a lot for the Indian tourism industry, an undeniable plus for the Indian economy.  A hippie and his wife/girlfriend came up to my friend and me after the film, ooh-ing and ahh-ing about the breathtaking scenes and colors and how it reminded him of his six previous trips to India.  I was surprised that he wasn’t dismayed by the film’s footage that showed a live lion feet away from the main boy actor — without any disclaimers at the end of the movie regarding cruelty to animals.  I tried to explain my general chagrin at the film, but he was insisting on “finding something to pound about.”  We did indeed pound fists.  I’m sure he will be visiting India again soon.

I also must admit that I did spend a good number of minutes in the OMNI theater grooving to some of the music tracks — of course, I am partial because the lead vocals are provided by Shubha Mudgal, one of my favorite Indian artists.  It is available to preview on iTunes, in case you are interested.  I also encourage those of you who have the opportunity to see the film Mystic India for yourself; I would love to hear others’ opinions, given that mine may be rather extreme.

Related posts:

1. A thought on understanding faith I was surfing the web when I found this blog...
2. Homosexuality and Hinduism Many of you have probably heard about the recent news...
3. The task that faces us Hinduism has always been a geographic faith, tied to South...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In particular, I came across the following story, which I think is appropriate to share since it encapsulates a lot of the themes we’ve been discussing on this blog for the past few months.  In some ways, then, this post is rather redundant, but I think the story serves as a humorous and charming way of conveying these notions.

In case you do find the story less than inspiring, I will offer this YouTube video (in honor of Harvard Dharma’s recently successful Kite Festival) set to Cornershop’s song Topknot, which has recently been remixed by M.I.A.

Chinmaya Mission story below…

A Chat with SWAMI CHINMAYANANDA

“Swamiji, I don’t believe in God.”  It was a young man, modern, tight pants, tobacco pipe stuck at the waist, trim thin moustache.  He spoke English with an Americanised drawl, and was evidently one of our university products, with higher education abroad.  Sophisticated, to the points of his pointed toes.

Swamiji beamed.  “Excellent!”  With a broad welcoming smile, nodding his head slowly, Swamiji continued:  “That’s fine.  I like you.  You are the man I have been wanting to meet.  I like your outspokenness.  You are intelligent and you think independently.  You have the courage to speak out your conviction, straight from the shoulder, as they say.  Now come, what kind of a God is it that you don’t believe in?”

The young man, who had made his statement about his non-believing, with a little hesitation, probably at his own audacity at denying God before a God-man, was pleasantly surprised at Swamiji’s cordial tone and benign smile, and, feeling encouraged, went on:

“This God, who sits above the clouds, and judges men, and dispenses favors and punishments by remote-control, at his own sweet will, don’t you think, Swamiji, it is all hocus pocus?”

Swamiji laughed.  “Shake hands, young man.  I am entirely with you.  Now, we are two, together.  I too don’t believe in that kind of God.  But….hmm, did you have breakfast before coming?”

“Yes, Swamiji.”

“Well, what did you have fore breakfast?”

“The usual things, porridge, toast, scrambled eggs, coffee…”

“Eggs. That’s nice.  Eggs!  Now, where did the eggs come from, Ram, that’s your name, isn’t it?”

Ram, with his brows raised, feeling that Swamiji was leading up to something, said: “I don’t exactly know, probably one of those new poultry farms near Poona.”

Swamiji: “I don’t mean that.  How are the eggs made? Do they grow in fields, or are they made in factories?”

“Simple.  I think you are pulling my legs, but, all the same I’ll answer you.  Hens, of course.  Hens lay eggs, you know!” Ram said with an air of flippancy.

Nodding his head, up and down, thoughtfully, Swamiji continued: “I see, I see, so the eggs come from hens.  Now where do the hens come from?”

Ram, an intelligent man, could see the trap he was being led into.  He started saying, “Of course from…” Then, wide-eyed, looked at Swamiji silently.  Swamiji smiled: “So eggs come from hens, hens from eggs, which again come from other hens, and so on, ad-infinitum.  Can you, Ram, say with any certainty, which was the first cause? Egg or hen? How and why?”

Swamiji, now addressing all the devotees present, went on: “You see, God is not just a person or individual, sitting in a palace above the clouds, dispensing favors.  It stands to reason that every effect must have had a cause prior to it.  The watch you are wearing did not make itself.  Your breakfast did not cook itself.  There was a cause, in each case.  That cause must have emerged from a previous cause.  God is now the very first cause.  The sole cause.  The uncaused cause.  There was no cause before Him.  He is the oldest, the most ancient, He was before Time.  The Sanaatanah, the Puraanah.  This ‘causation-hunting’ is the favorite pastime of the evolving human intellect – trying to trace everything to its ultimate origin.  That which is beyond the point at which the intellect gets stalled, is G-O-D.  The intellect cannot come to a conclusion as to the ultimate cause as in the age-old example of the hen and the egg.  Thus far – not farther, is the limitation of the capacity of the human intellect.”

Ram was flushed with excitement.  He was thrilled.  In a faltering voice he asked, “There does seem to be something in what you say, Swamiji.  Am I to understand that that is God?”

“That, which you now speak of as God, my boy, the Muslim calls Allah, the Christian refers to as ‘My father in heaven,’ the Parsi worships as Ahura Mazda.  These are a few of the different ways in which He or It is referred to, but all are referring to the same supreme principle.  The cause behind all causes.  The source of all that was, now is, and ever will be.  The Vedas refer to it as Brahman, the Absolute, the infinite.  The Truth is one, the wise speak of it variously.”

“But Swamiji, the description does not seem to be complete.  Is that all that God is? How can one come to know Him?”

“Now, you are really getting somewhere.  I have not ‘described’ God.  He cannot be described.  To define Him is to defile Him.  What I pointed out only constitutes one way, one manner, of approaching the Truth.  It is just one aspect.  Now, your second question asks ‘How can one come to know him?’  Know him! He cannot be ‘known’ as you know this table or this chair or your wife or your pipe.  He is not an object of the intellect.  He is the very Subject.  Have you heard of the great disciple of the Kenopanishad who approached the Master and enquired: ‘Revered Sir, what is It, directed by which the mind cognizes objects, the eyes see, the ears hear, and so on?’ The Master cryptically answered: ‘It is the Eye of the eye, the Ear of the ear, the Mind of the mind.’  In fact, It is the very Subject that enables the eye to see, the ear to hear, etc.  It is not an object of the senses or the mind or the intellect.  Hence, to answer your question, I have to tell you that you cannot make God an object of knowledge.  An example will elucidate the idea.  You are walking along a dark country road at night, occasionally illuminating your path with the aid of a battery torch.  You want to know how the torch gives light, so you unscrew the torch, but you will not be able to see the battery cells, as the bulb will not emit light unless powered by the battery of cells.  Similarly, the eyes, the ears, the mind, and the intellect, all of which get their own power to function from the Life Principle, cannot understand It as an object.  God is thus conceived of as the Life Principle, in every one.”

The audience sat spell-bound listening to Swamiji, exposition of a difficult Vedantic truth in easy lucid style.

“Then Swamiji, you say that God or Truth is something abstract, that cannot be seen or heard or touched or even thought of.  Am I right?”

“You are very much right.  In fact, God is all this and much more.  The Bhagavat Gita says, ‘Weapons cleave It not; fire burns It not; water wets It not; wind dries It not.  This Self cannot be cut, nor burnt, nor wetted, nor dried.’  It is not material; It is not matter; understand.”

“Why did you say ‘Self’?”

“The Supreme, Life Principle, is also the Self in you, in me, and in everybody. It is the innermost core of your personality. The popular misconception is that ‘man is a body, with a soul.’  That is not correct. The truth is that ‘man is the Soul, in a body.’ He is eternal. The role of the body is likened to a worn-out garment that is discarded by the wearer at his will.” Now, the other members of the audience who had been listening with awe and reverence, took the opportunity to clear their doubts.

“Swamiji, if God is an abstraction that cannot be seen or thought of, is there any significance to idol worship?”

“Of course there is a lot.  When your dear son is in America, and you cannot see him,. Whenever you want, do you or do you not get solace by looking at his photograph?  You do know that the photo is not your son, but only a piece of paper with various tones of grey, but it reminds you of your beloved boy and his great love for you.  So also the idols in temples are to remind the devotees of the ideal, the Supreme.  Since the human mind cannot conceive of a formless Supreme, God is conceived of in form as represented by an idol.  To the earnest devotee, the idol appears as a living embodiment of his Lord, and he goes into ecstasy at its sight.  It is, however, necessary to remember that the idol is not God, but represents God.”

“Why is it, Swamiji, that, as in Christianity or Islam, a particular day of the week is not earmarked in Hinduism for temple worship?”

At this question, Swamiji drew himself up, straightened and roared at the top of his voice; “Hinduism is not a part-time job!”  He then explained at length that aspiration to associate with divinity, cannot be restricted to any particular time.  “Have you ever heard of the school boy who said that ‘the earth is round on Sundays and flat on other days’? So also, a man cannot be made to be divine on Sundays and devilish on all other days.  (Maybe, most of us are that way!)”

“So constant practice, frequent association with the good, etc., are needed.  The temple visits and worship should elevate the mind of the seeker and help him to keep his mind in a higher plane.  He should also take other steps to continue the purification of the mind at all times of the day, at home, in the office, at the market place.”

“What is a pure mind, Swamiji?”

“A pure mind is one which is calm, free from agitations.  Agitations are caused mainly by our likes and dislikes and desires.  Desires spell disaster, fulfilled or frustrated.  Mahatma Gandhi was very fond of the ‘Sthitha Pragna’ portion of the second chapter of the Bhagavat Gita, in which the causes and consequences of desire are most graphically described.  It is the ladder of fall:

“When a man thinks of objects, attachments for them arise; from attachment, desire is born; from desire (unfulfilled) arises anger; from anger comes delusion; from delusion loss of memory; from loss of memory, the destruction of discrimination; from destruction of discrimination, he perishes.”

Swamiji then added: “The Lord also points out then the three great entrances to hell are lust, anger and greed.”

One in the audience asked, “I have read a good deal, Swamiji, I also have convictions.  Yet, to put these values in practice is my problem.”

Swamiji: “This was exactly Arjuna’s problem.  The Lord advised him, ‘Recognize your real enemies.  They are desire and anger, born of passionate nature, all devouring and sinful.’  Knowing your enemies will enable you to destroy them.  Knowing your weaknesses, you will make efforts to discard them.  Once you locate a dead rat in your wardrobe, that was emitting foul odor, you will promptly pick it up by the tail and throw it as far away as possible.”

“Our Shastras have laid down a clear-cut procedure.  The three-fold practice consists of Sravana, Manana, and Nidhi-dhyasana – Hearing is not in-one-ear-out-the-other.  It is attentive listening to discourses on our great scriptures (including reading them), contemplating on the ideas contained therein, and lastly meditation.  Many people come and tell me that they have gone through the Gita many times.  I tell them ‘Let the Gita go through you once at least.’  Not just hearing or reading but absorption of the great ideas contained therein, assimilating them, and living those values will alone produce a radiance in the life of an individual.”

“Proper understanding, and correct attitudes are important.  For example, we often meet the allegation that Hinduism is an ‘out-of-the-world religion’ meant only for the recluse.  The spirit of Hinduism is not understood by those who say this.  Wealth is not taboo for the seeker, but the constant craving for wealth IS.  Property is not prohibited, but one is enjoined to use it in the service of society.”

“The Vedantic concept of renunciation has nothing to do with have or have-not, in a physical sense; it means the attitude of non-attachment.  The classic example in our ancient lore is that of Emperor Janaka, living in the luxury of a palace, but still considered such a great saint and sage that great aspirants went to him for guidance.”

“There goes the lunch-time bell.  All of you please have Prasad at the Annakshetra before you go.”

“HARI OM! HARI OM! HARI OM!”

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: What defines truth? In honor of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday, I thought it would...
2. Question of the Week: What is one of your objects of devotion? This week, we will think about your objects of devotion,...
3. How do we fight the detractors of Hinduism? I came upon today an article about the falsehood of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.