Mocking the Frontier: The Baba’s Dargah and Chamaliyal

Re: # 150
Hindus really need to get their act together in organizing their temples better. The way some of these temples are managed is just very sad.

Ans: This is mostly due to priests and their families. Most of these temples are run by trustees. Most of these priests are illiterate and do not want to hand over control of temple property to a more organised management. Couple of temples are managed very well. Dakshineswar temple in Kolkata is very nicely managed.

BSF is really gone mad. Why to protect tomb and superstition? Demolish it.

re: Aamir # 153

Man, this is an absolutely shameful thing. And the worst part of it is that some of these so called mahantas are nothing but hardened criminals running away from the law. These criminals should be identified and sent to jail, where they belong.

Hindus really need to get their act together in organizing their temples better. The way some of these temples are managed is just very sad.

anarayan #150
``there`s no need to defend that which is thrust on you``
Who ARE you for me to care what you think, please explain? I was not defending myself why should I need to? I have nothing to defend, I havenot `done` anything.

``I know its hard to accept``

What is there to accept or reject in the first place?

Its like saying ``I know its hard to accept that you speak best in your mother tongue``

``I know its hard for you to accept that you like your mother`s chappatis best``

``I know its hard for you to accept that the sights, sounds and smells you enjoyed in your childhood and youth will always be a seminal influence``

As for all these things being `thrust` on one, speak for yourself. Not everyone is bound by their circumstances as you seem to be.

sadnaji,

You have given up. Makes me sad you have done so.

Well, at least my earlier point to Studebaker has been proved - there`s no need to defend that which is thrust on you. You and me are hindus not by choice but by accident, just like Studebaker is a muslim by accident. Kind of hard to accept that, I know.



Were you a hindu by choice, you would have answers (of your own) to these questions which are quite fundamental to the hindu faith.

thanks and best regards,



Myself when young did eagerly frequent

Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument

About it and about: but evermore

Came out by the same Door as in I went.

(Khayyam)

SameerJB#120: Babri masjid and rise of BJP and God in eastern traditions - one view in India is that the politicians interfere with the religion and not the other way around. Personally I believe that politics is intermeshed with religion in some religions in some places.

More on Karma - i am aware that it is popularly percieved that the accepatnce of Karma makes one fatalistic - in Hinduism, a person is supposed to abide by his Dharma - the message of Gita delivered on the battlefield to a reluctant warrior was about this - for me, a believer in the concept of Karma would do what he must (his Dharma) in a hardship instead of resigning to his fate. The Dharma, interestingly, is not unchanging but is dependent on the time and place and person.

On a similar yet dissimilar note a few stray thoughts and a few general opinions and a few points of view (all my own work), as Behram Contractor would have said. Peace be to his soul.

a) Immanuel Kant`s fight with ethics and the need for good to be rewarded and evil/bad to be punished did end in a knot. He chose to believe in rebirth as the way out.

b)Hinduism`s tendencies towards paradoxes, abstractness and mythology seems to have mothered/ nurtured / or partaken in establishing a opposite point to Grrek/western philosophy. Most eastern philosophies, here I am talking of more ancient than current, seem to have worked harder on political organisation, societal heirarchy, statecraft, defining nation-state, democracy.

Greeks, especially since they too have a mythology as long if not longer than Hindus, seem to have worked harder on answers of living in this world...establishing republics, and banishing poets/artists like Plato. Hinduism tilts more towards metaphysics.

c) Do you think Hinduism is to be praised for the tradition of oral history and damned for criminal disregard to written history?

Just bouncing ideas.

anarayan #142
PS: The fact is that anyone would have not 4 or five but many hundred questions when trying to get to the heart of a subject, and many questions which are often raised by differing personal experiences and perceptions.

So say one wants to read the Gita. One way is, get a few different interpretations of well-recommended scholars on the Gita, get together a few like-minded folk : a group who know each other well enough to have the mutual understanding (and time) to persevere honestly with every doubt raised.

Take firstly, the terminology. One needs to thrash out the utility of many terms used before starting on the concepts, what they really mean and how and if they are relevant to oneself or to the subject.

Secondly, the conceptual subject matter itself. What does it really mean, how does it relate or have relevance to one`s own experience and understanding, how is it consistent with itself and what is written or said elsewhere or by someone else.

Thirdly, the most difficult one is bringing these concepts into practice, if one feels the need to, ie.

There will always be a variety of interpretations read into the same idea, sometimes based on different personal experiences and philosophies and it takes patience to sort it all out and understand the ins and outs.

However donot expect to reach any hard and fast conclusions. Thats why its good to have more than one scholar`s intepretation as guide, the difference between scholars is also food for thought.

And thus in a logical sequence, one could go through the text, line-by-line, not proceeding until previous material is understood to some minimum satisfaction.

But step zero is deciding that its worth investing some time and effort in investigating the subject properly, because thats what it takes. Frankly, I think that is all the so-called `faith` one requires (for the Gita at least which seems to be rather nonreligious), namely some time and effort is worth expending.

One may say `blind leading the blind`. IMO, its more of giving oneself food for thought like in any other subject, where you begin with a hypothesis and then continously test its validity. For this you first have to grasp the hypothesis.

Gandhi said (and can be said of many `books`) that every time he reread the Gita, he came up with something new.

Sameer and other seekers of hindu `knowledge`,

The best book I have read on hinduism, the essence of hinduism, presented in a way well suited for the rational minded is the works of Carlos Casteneda. I know that his initial experiences talked of drugs, but the essential phylosophy of the `sorcerers` of mexico is almost identical to the hindu world view. My last quote to sameer was from his last book, ``the active side of infinity`` 1998.

What I found fascinating is the question and answer format, intersperced with experiences, and many of the questions are very similar to ours. ``Tales of Power`` and ``Seperate Reality`` are very good answers to several of hindu questions.

regards

jay

anarayan #142
anarayan, you are on your own in this. If your sole argument throughout your post is that

a. there are no truly knowledgeable people to explain (I am guessing Vedanta)

b. in any case the ideas contained are a matter of blind faith and mumbo jumbo and not even minimally consistent,

I`m afraid I donot agree with that impression, even with the minimum understanding and exposure that I do have. Your questions are not unique questions or particularly hard ones for someone knowledgeable to answer. However, I donot plan to be the person to `prove` this to you through one-liners online.

One edition of the Gita I came across through a family member was ``The Bhagavad Gita for Daily Living`` in three volumes by Eknath Easwaran, Nilgiri Press.

SameerJB #137: I appreciate your interest in Hinduism and I am sorry if you feel unwelcome to ask about it.

I find Karma as a theoretical concept rational - you reap what you sow, so beware! - lest your actions fail to catch up with you in this life, they will in future ones. Bali is killed unfairly by Vishnu in His incarnation as Rama. Krishna, His next avatar is mistakenly killed by a tribal hunter`s arrow. The re-births are not never-ending - the soul will unite with the God (Moksha) after improving and educating itself through the many births - so there is a reward for living a just life...the good deeds add up...

I have heard of the concept of a God thats before Time and beyond Space in Hinduism... Bhagavad Gita seems to say that.

On a different note, the way we are as a society may/need not reflect the knowledge in our books and philosophies. So it does not matter if we have the greatest philosophy on the Earth if we dont have horse sense.

Later.

gymnosophist #75:

``(this should please our friend Jay who likens Hinduism to a strictly commercial contract between God and humans)``

The Gods and temples and saints that produced results by making the devotees` lives better became popular and continue to be sought after...

``Isn`t it interesting that Rama should appear before that Sultan of Hyderabad and the very English District Collector but not before the common Hindus who pray to Him daily?``

Yes. Used to wonder about it myself.

Re:sadna #136

Sadnaji,

Thanks for your answers, but here are some more questions:

(1)

``Thats what gurus were meant for, to guide individual quests for answers, and even finding a guru `suitable` to ones individual needs is apparently a tough proposition..``

How can I decide which guru to follow? How can an ignorant person (me) know the truth or falsehood of what the guru says - especially one who points to the book often? Can it not result in a case of ``blind leading the blind``?

As a very young man, once I wandered into the brahmakumari mission in delhi. The resident guru took me around explaining their beliefs. The human soul can neither be created nor destroyed - it always is and always will be. In that case, my high school mind reasoned, the total number of souls in the universe has to be a constant. How come then the population of the world is increasing, I asked. Where are all these extra souls coming from? He looked at me for several seconds and said, ``The man you call your father, how do you know he actually is your father``. That floored me. ``See, you have to *BELIEVE * your mother, when she tells you that this person is your Dad``. Wow, what profound logic, I thought.

I encountered this ``your Dad`` argument many times in my life. It seems a favorite with the believers.

(2)

``Well, I think the Gita says, what a person desires greatly and works sincerely for, he will attain that. Hence, if the goal is money, he will get money, if it is `salvation`,( whatever concept he carries of salvation), he will attain that.`` ``So one difference lies in what each achieves, in one case money, in another case something else.``

Well that`s a trivial difference. So you say there really is no fundamental difference between the two - wanting tons of $$ and wanting to sit on the right hand side of God. And I agree with you.

(3)

``The second difference arises IMO, in what manner each man pursues his goal. A man seeking to earn money or seeking salvation, but doing it singlemindedly being beyond the sway of success and failure, without `getting attached to the result of his efforts` or without knowingly causing harm to anyone, is more likely to be in

control of his emotions, senses and mind and intellect, with unclouded vision of his goal and hence more at peace and in tune with himself and hence again capable of `greater` things.``

Reminds me of expert advice from a friend on how to begin investing - throw in a couple of 1000 and forget it. If you get something you`ll be happy, if you lose it - errr, you DID forget it, did`nt you ?!

``Karmanye-vadhikaraste ...``. Every hindu worth his heeng, errr Salt I mean, knows this - Never think of the fruits of your action - but continue to act.

Our passion for the result drives us - its the motive force. Whether its a job, or a hobby, a work of art or an invention, taking the kids for their shots or to start a revolution. All action, as we understand it, is a result of motive. Yet you (i.e the Gita) say that ideal action should be devoid of motive. What gives ???

(4)

``Also what is Inner self? ...and outer self?

``There was an analogy from Katha Upanishad to answer this question which according to me is a usable analogy. This may not be exactly what is said : A chariot drawn by horses, the horses are the senses, the chariot is the body, the reins are the mind, the charioteer is the intellect, the rider of the chariot is the soul. Now where

one wants to go is the path.``

This is what the book says. May I conclude that you sadnaji have no real idea what these mean? In that case welcome to the club!

Once a `wandering swami` from Maharashtra came to stay a few days in our college campus. He was a tall, soft-spoken young man. Complete absence of any tan made me wonder about the `wandering` part though. He granted private audience to me and a friend. What have you achieved, I asked eventually. ``I have lots of spiritual data`` - his exact words. Can you explain? ``Well, I remember many of my past births and the knowledge I gained

during each of those births.``

What carries the knowledge? ``The soul - off course``, he said. ``One has to leave the body behind. See, according to hindu philosophy, the soul transmigrates from body to body, gaining knowledge in the process, becoming purer and purer, until eventually it attains the ultimate``. Isn`t the soul supposed to be deathless and changeless. ``Yes, that is correct``. Isn`t memory change. ``Er, what do you mean``? Well whenever something is recorded somewhere, either in a Video tape, or casette tape, or computer disk, or a notebook or a human brain, there takes place a change in that object - associated with that piece of information. ``Yes, I understand``. So, for the soul to carry memory, it must be changable.

After several moments of thought, he concluded ``I think you have become too westernised in your approach and it is difficult to explain these concepts in that manner``.

regards,

Sameer #137
The problem is that the common label applied to individual belief aka religion is also entwined with history and the politics of religious differences. IMO, in the North it may have been more Hindu-Muslim differences, in the South it was primarily intercaste differences. The best thing(IMO) which has happened to Hinduism is independent India`s Constitution with its redefination of inter-religious and inter-caste relations and separation(to whatever extent) of Hinduism from the business of the state.

Religion will always remain an important factor in the realm of group interests and individual interests, but hopefully thats it. One of the events that I remember feeling quite upset about, pre-BJP, is hearing about a `Hindu conference` (held incidentally in Nepal) of which one goal was to `define a Hindu`. I hated and still hate the idea of having to define myself and whatever I choose to believe/disbelieve according to someone else`s defination. At present the only way such definations can be imposed are by violence or muscle power, for eg, still-existing caste discrimination and things like some temples which say ``Hindus only``.

There may be a tussle ahead to keep a few from declaring judgement on what the rest of us are or ought to be, but paradoxically Hindutva movements are making the implications clearer of not stating clearly our autonomy in our religious affairs to politicians. And for some its a `rediscovery` to realise that easily/commonly accessible elements of Hindu philosophy do also lend weight to all arguments for retaining individual autonomy in belief/skepticism without being labelled for it.

Though I donot believe that what is in the scriptures of the past is the right basis to argue for such autonomy in the present because doing so also constitutes bringing religion into public affairs, but by another door.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ref: AAmir#124

I don`t agreee with you. If Ali1 is a pitiable racist, he must be told so.

If any Indian here on Chowk began calling Pakistanis such names as

Katua

sadee gaand

Aadha l *nd

dheela paijama

bahanch *d

(all names I have heard some racist Hindus use for Muslims)

then you and I have a responsibility to not laugh and say `how cute` but to put that character in his place.

If we dont do that then we need to examine our own racism.