How does the karma theory of Hinduism work?

Take some time and follow through this enriching discussion on Karma, how it works, how it doesn't work, the role of free will, past actions, the future impact of action, or inaction ... 

Insightful exchanges throughout this post. Among the very best in the forum. Proud to share this. Bookmark it. You may need to come back to this  discussion at some point in your life :)

This discussion started off from a question on the origins of the term 'Chandala'. Dr. Koenraad Elst provides a deep historical and scriptural perspective. In the latter half of the discussion, Rajiv Malhotra explains Karma theory quite beautifully. This is followed by a refreshing sequence of Q&A.
 
November 2013
Need help with the meaning of a word: Chandala

Kiran asks:

"..  Recently somebody gave me a copy of Ravi Zacharias's DVD, Jesus among other gods, where in he quotes from Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 (8).  The english transaltion of the verse is below.

"When one acts piously, he attains a good birth. He is born as a brahmana or a kshatriya or a vaisya. When one acts sinfully, he attains a sinful birth. He is born as a dog, a pig, or an outcaste"

When I looked up the sanskrit verse, it says "Chandala" (womb of a chandala women). According to Wikipedia, Chandala means "Chandala is a Sanskrit word for someone who deals with disposal of corpses, and is a Hindu lower caste, formerly considered untouchables. Currently it is a term used specifically in Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India. Sandala has become a swear word in the colloquial usage of the Tamil language. Chandal is a general derogatory slur used to refer to a filthy, mean or low person^[1] in North India."

... Ravi says this verse promotes caste system, which is incorrect and seems like the verse was completely taken out of its context. (Upanishad talks about progression of atman in its journey to Mukti)
 

.... what is the real meaning of the word “Chandala”, is it possible this word had a different meaning during the post vedic period and over the period of time meaning of the word got changed based on its use."

Karthik forwards an interpretation from a priest:

"...This verse does not endorse any system of discrimination it merely states that whatever vasanas or habits one cultivates in life one reaps the fruits thereof in the next birth. The family that one is born into and the social circumstances of one’s birth are all due to Karma..."

Koenraad Elst comments: (glad to have Dr. Elst back after a long break!)

"... To say hazily that words just happen to undergo changes in meaning. Something more specific is needed, esp. on such a possibly very harmful quotation.

It is a fact that the very oldest mention of the reincarnation doctrine (of which the Rg-Veda is totally innocent) already implies the caste application of the karma interpretation of reincarnation. It is in this form the Uddalaka et al. first learn the doctrine from their king. It says that if you have shown a pleasant character, you will be born as a Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya. These caste titles necessitate a caste translation of the second part: if you have led a stinking life, you will be born from a stinking womb: dog, pig or Chandala.

Chandala was originally an ethnonym of one of the Dravidian-speaking tribes of Central India, where you still have the Kandhs, Gonds etc.; probably the Kandaloi mentioned by Ptolemy in his geography....

At any rate, the emotive meaning of "Chandala" must have been something like "savage", "cannibal". So, in the moralistic version of the karma doctrine (future reward or punishment for your present conduct), caste is included in the calculus of auspiciousness: just as poverty, a handicap, slavery etc. are miserable conditions which may serve as karmic punishment, so also the birth in a lowly community, regardless of whether it is classified as "untouchable" or "tribal".

If you want to present Hinduism to the world as egalitarian, you will indeed have to straighten out quotes like this one from the Chandogya Upanishad. But to a Christian, you should not answer by apologizing for or refuting his understanding of the Upanishad quote. You should simply point at the Biblical repeated sanction for slavery or at Yahweh's repeated commandments to kill the unbelievers (e.g. the pious worshippers of Baal incarnated as the Golden Calf, made from their generously donated Jewels) or the strangers threatening to pollute the people's purity (e.g. the cheating and massacre of the Shechemites by the sons of Jacob). You may set your own house in order, but meanwhile you have to keep Christian meddlers out by refocusing their attention on their own injustices."

  

This resulted in a very interesting discussion by Rajiv Malhotra on the nature of karma theory, which we carry 'as' is to avoid any misinterpretation

 "There is a persistent confusion on the difference between the following two ideas:

A) Bad karma leads to future birth in adverse conditions, whereas good karma leads to future birth in good circumstances. (Karma theory)

B) A person should be treated by society depending on the type of parents. (Caste system as known today)

A is true as per Hindu dharma, but B is untrue. These ideas must be separated and differentiated. Otherwise people falsely conclude that A implies B.

Some points to consider are:

PART ONE:

1) One's karma leads to corresponding phala (consequence). This is the principle of causation. Karma X causes the effect Y. We might write it as: X ==> Y.

2) For Y to happen within the natural laws, the right conditions (Z) are necessary in which Y will happen. Z is simply the means by which Y will happen. If I am to die in a plane crash, I will "happen" to book a seat in that particular flight. It is not that the pilot or anyone else involved in the flight "caused" my death. It was coming to me. The circumstances (Z) leading to my death (such as pilot error, engine failure, hijacking, etc) were mere mechanisms to bring it about, but the effect of being killed was coming to me because of my own past karma.

3) In the above example, can we say that: Z ==> Y? Did the pilot error or engine failure or hijacking cause my death? Karma theory says NO. These were merely the mechanisms by which natural law could operate and bring my death. The real cause of Y was X, not Z.

4) Once you understand the above, then it becomes easy to appreciate that one's parents do not cause one to have certain experiences or propensities. These are the result of past karmas and the parents are merely the mechanisms. Each of us chose his or her parents, society, time and place of birth by virtue of the portfolio of karmas that needed to be expressed or played out.

PART TWO:

5) Even though a person has a specific circumstance at birth it does NOT follow that his entire life's outcomes will be pre-determined by that. There IS meritocracy at work. The outcomes in one's life will be a combination of both past karmas and one's use of free will in the present. Thus a man born in adversity can advance by his own actions and free choices. Conversely one can fritter away one's good conditions by being foolish, unethical etc. So one's life's outcomes are a combination of both past karma and free will that is exercised in the present.

6) Therefore, one cannot use past karma as excuse, and fail to take responsibility, or just give up. Conversely, one cannot take the good life for granted because of birth circumstances.

Hence, karma theory is NOT fatalism.

PART THREE:

7) The above has focused solely on one's own self: what I choose to do and how it impacts me. But what about one's attitudes towards someone else? Should my attitude towards a person be biased by that person's conditions? If yes, that would mean I am biased because he is born poor and hence I feel it was coming to him. Or if I am biased favorably towards a rich man because I feel his good karma made him rich. These biases would be WRONG on my part and they would be acts of bad karma by me. My attitude towards another person should be unbiased either way, and should be based entirely on what is MY RIGHTEOUS ACTION, I.E. MY SVA-DHARMA. The fact that he is in adverse conditions ought to generate sympathy/karuna, and not harsh judgment.

8) In other words, caste bias by me is wrong!!!

9) Karma theory is my guiding principle in my OWN actions. That is how I judge MYSELF, not others. My attitude towards others should be 'tat tvam asi'. "



Upon member request, Rajiv elaborates on tat tvam asi.
"There are many levels of this "second-person" practice. It culminates in what is called nididhyasana. To learn this get a good guru to initiate you in Shankara's Upadesa Sahasri or some other similar text.

At preliminary levels you can practice by seeing the other person as Brahman-playing-role-abc.

So you need bifocal vision: one vision seeing Brahman and the other seeing the person abc.

Also experience oneself at both levels: one anchored as atman, the other as "Rajiv" or whatever the role happens to be.

So one sees the Self-playing-1 interacting with the Self-playing-2. Note the Self is same in both cases but the roles are not.

The realm of action is where there is multiplicity of roles. Hence its a fallacy to escape into sameness citing all is one like many people do. But this dual vision keeps both one and many views in perspective.

Second-person practice is 24/7 or as often as you can remind yourself. It is easier when things are pleasant and the other party is likeable. But when there is tension, it is easy to slip into one of two ways: Either into sameness (forgetting the role), or into dualism of 1 fighting 2 (forgetting the Self).

Second-person practices are what we can practice living actively, transacting with others. It is meditation off the mat so to speak." 


Sree seems clarifications on Rajiv's discussions:
"I would like to clarify the balance between past karma and free will that is implied in dharmic philosophy, and how that free will component contributes to future karma.

I believe Part 2 is important i.e the outcome of a janma cannot depend solely on the initial state of karma. Because if so, then the state of karma at the beginning of Janma1 already determines the state of karma at the beginning of Janma2, which determines J3 etc., for all time.

However, Part 1 intrigues me. X ==> Y; Z is the mechanism for Y and is not responsible for causing Y. If so, then what about the karma of Z ? Does the pilot gain or lose karma because his errors caused the death of a person? What if it was a mugger Z who killed person Y who was scheduled to die because of X - will Z accumulate bad karma? By this logic, no. But then, how does anyone ever accumulate bad karma? Or good? "

Rajiv comment: This final point above is very important to discuss. If pilot is an intermediary, does HE accrue karma on his account?

The pilot has a separate account for his karma. He is accountable for his actions. But his karmic transaction is with the cosmos and not with me. So there can be many scenarios, such as:

1) Pilot was not in error or his error was without bad intentions. He does not incur karma on his account.

2) Pilot was committing something wrong and knew it, or was careless due to being drunk or some kind of violation of the rules that he could have avoided but did not. So pilot commits karma with the cosmos.

The important point is that either way his action is a karmic transaction with the cosmos and not with me... "

Jal goes deeper into the discussion:
"....In his example of X, Y and Z, my take is that the phala of X is not Y but it is Z. That is to say that the karmic consequence of one's action manifests itself as a circumstance but not as a fact/state of one's being. So if someone did something horrible (action X) then they must face as its phala an air crash (circumstance Z) which MAY OR MAY NOT result in their death (fact/state of their being Y) which will ultimately depend on my free will.


As a less subtle example, if someone shoots a bullet at me, that's a phala (circumstance) from my past action that I cannot prevent but whether I decide to [try to] get out of its way or resignedly accept my fate and stand still is my free will. Extending further, all circumstances in my life are phalas of my past actions and my reactions to these circumstances are my new actions which will decide my future circumstances...."


Rajiv comment: He makes a good point, but its more complex. Phala is not always a specific/concrete outcome though it can be that in some cases.
Usually the probability distribution of possible outcomes has changed as the result of phala. There is still uncertainty of concrete outcome as there is free will. But the probability distribution has become adversely impacted.

The point I wanted to make is something else: The pilot is not the culprit in whatever adversity I face, be it death or anything else. The pilot is a conduit for the phala to reach me, much like the postman who delivers a notice that could be good or bad news, or a bank teller who hands cash to a client but the teller is not a party to the transaction between the bank and client.
The transaction is between me and the cosmos, various intermediaries are like the postman or bank teller."


Maria has the next set of questions:
"
1- If there are not bad intentions, no karma is incurred? Or karma is incurred but less strong? I thought that even without bad intention, some karma is always incurred, in different degrees, from the simple fact of breathing to that of causing a death to somebody unintentionally or intentionally. We keep creating some karma or the other while we think we are the doers so, in fact, till the moment of enlightenment in which we are completely surrendered to Brahman. Only when we realise we are not the doer, then we don´t create or accumulate any karma. It is not like this?

...in the case of this pilot, the crux is not if he was mere intermediary or not for a karma of somebody else being realised, but the fact that, almost for sure, he would not be enlightened. So that action of him, even unintentionally, even as only an intermediary, does create karma for him. Maybe mild, but it does.

2- In the typical example of a plane crash in which all the passengers die, it must be true that the karma of all of them was to die in that very moment....logic says that our moment of death is inevitable. But it seems is not death that finds them, but that they book that very flight to look for their death, of course, unconsciously. This case always seems to me strange...

3- What about natural disasters? It is the karma of all the population of that place to die together? It has to be... ???

4- In the case of adoptions, which parents were to be their parents? Both biological and then adoptive?"




Rajiv provides a detailed response. Again, we carry it without omitting anything, but highlight some key points.

1. Karma account is individual. But often the phala is given collectively when multiple persons deserve similar phala even though their karmas were independent. So if the set of persons ( S) happen to be in the same plane crash, it does not necessarily imply (though it could in some cases) that all the members of S committed a collective karma and hence got a collective phala.
2. Karma theory cannot be reduced to an algorithm. It is not deterministic or reductionist. It is probabilistic and has some uncertainty of outcomes. Free will operates within a system of causation that has built in uncertainty as well. This is why Indian thinkers had little issue with quantum mechanics whereas western thought went into a tailspin and the leading quantum physicists Heisenberg and Schrodinger both referred to Vedanta as the only system that could make sense of it. (This started the massive digestion of Vedanta into new formulations by Westerners so as to domesticate it within their own frameworks.)
3. My karmic analysis should be specific to my own actions and consequences, and I should not in the same analysis also bring in some third party's karma or consequences. If I try to understand his karma as part of analyzing my karma, it will confuse me. His karma deserve a separate analysis in which I dont figure. So each individual does karmic transactions with the cosmos and not with one other. Analogy: I sold shares of IBM to the stock exchange and someone else bought them from the exchange, but we did not transact with each other.
4. For example: Rajiv causes harm to person X. Implications: (a) In Rajiv's account: Rajiv has new entry/perturbation in his karmic account with the cosmos. (b) In X's account: He got phala from cosmos (NOT from Rajiv). Plus, depending on his reaction to rajiv, he could be creating new karma in his account with the cosmos. Important point is that both persons karmically transact only with the cosmos and never with each other. The rest of the details are inconsequential as far as this point is concerned. Focus ONLY on this one point: Who is the karmic transaction with?
5. Notice there are two levels of transactions going on. At the visible/empirical or worldly level, the two persons are doing things to each other. Someone who does not believe in karma theory will accept this level of transactions, and he will think that it is the entire transaction. (So if he got away with a corrupt deed, he will think he has escaped.) This is the level of transactions we see openly. Where we disagree with such a person is that we also believe in a second level that takes places invisibly to us. This is the shadow level of transaction. The shadow transaction is the karmic transaction with the cosmos. It is causation that is in addition to the first level that is visible. Each time you do visible-action it automatically adds a perturbation into your individual karmic account with the cosmos in the shadow system. Karma system is a shadow system of causation between each individual and the cosmos.
6. Once you get this point, then the idea of caste by birth becomes clear.  First, my parents did not cause my circumstances as my phala came from the cosmos, and parents were mere facilitators. Second, the phala is probabilistic and not deterministic, meaning that I have free will to change my life. Third, how I react/respond to my circumstances creates new karma which is entirely up to me.

The implications are:

• Dont blame others for your present circumstances.
• You are not stuck in your circumstances long term.
• You must act in a dharmic manner in each present moment, in order to create positive karma going forward.

We have not discussed here how to transcend karma by performing nishkama, wherein actions continue selflessly without accruing karma. Thats another level of discussion.

Furthermore, we have also not discussed a very important: Performing karma with dual-lens as Krishna asks Arjun to do. (A) The men on the other side are ultimately the same atman. (B) But in this role/manifestation they are men who must be killed, and Arjun-as-role-player must perform his svadharma and do this.

Its best to leave these two points for future threads. The main treatment above must be understood and not get sidetracked with these two more advanced levels of understanding."

Aditya has the next followup:
"does inaction on one's part create a karmic entry/perturbation? So, for example, if I walk past a beggar on the street and clearly have enough money in my pocket to give him but choose not to do so, then will this be a negative entry/perturbation with respect to the cosmos that I must deal with later on?"


Rajiv comment: "Great question. Physical action or inaction is not relevant. What was the intention in taking action or in not taking action?

This is where a living guru is important as only such a person can read your intentions and put them in context of the circumstances. My guru gave different advice to different persons on this very question, and it depended on multiple factors. If it is nishkama (non-doer mode) there is no karma accrued because "you" did not do it  it is prerna (divine inspiration). But if "you" have intentions or vested interest then it is karma if you elected to escape action out of self-interest  ego-driven desire to help. My most favorite question used to be: How do I know when the desire to help is prerna and when it is ego-driven? At times guru said Who are you wanting to get involved in what is none of your business; your ego seeks self-importance. At other times guru said This person needing help is Bhagvan and the situation came to you with prerna to act in a detached manner that is helpful.

So I dont think I can answer generally it depends on all the facts in a given situation. Nor am I qualified to be a guru who can evaluate all your circumstances. My advice is: You need a guru for at least a decade during your formative period of practice." 

Chir comments:
"Is there a book you would recommend that would give me more insights into karma and how it works or  how to understand/interpret it. Something that explains karma from not just Vedanta's interpretation but also from Samkhya and maybe Buddhism side (basically from various different schools)... I remember long time back you recommended a book on nondualism, Non-duality by David Roy. Do you think that would be a good start, since you also mention about karma with dual-lens?"

Rajiv comment: There are important areas of difference among various interpretations of karma in Indian philosophy. But I gave my own insights, not a canned/standard view from any particular text.

Buddhists do not go into detailed mechanics of karma and nor do Vedanta texts. Both these philosophies focus more on ultimate reality's relationship to provisional reality, and not so much on the details of how provisional reality functions. Samkhya gives a lot of detail on karma. But none of these philosophical explanations is very complete and much of what we know comes in the form of stories rather than a systematic end-to-end model per se. So you have to extrapolate a model/system by learning from anecdotes and examples.

...This eclectic method bothers many bookworms wanting a specific X or Y school's position. Other bookworms say "aha! I discovered that you must be in school X" just because I happened to use an example from there. Because they cannot think out of the box, they project this limitation upon others.
....
In the West there is an emerging field called "constructive theology" where Biblical scholars extrapolate, innovate and propose new solutions. They connect the dots in their own ways and this gets debated among them. Classical Christian texts do not address many issues people want to address today and this is done under constructive theology. In Hinduism we have smritis to do this job of innovation. In a sense my interpretations would fall under that. The laziness of our thinkers (who can do little beyond parroting) shows -- as in one example of a member writing persistently to me privately complaining that I must belong to some "sect X" because of what I write. They just cannot think out of the box."


 
Kundan adds:
"In addition to the beautiful explanation that Rajiv ji has given, you would want to check out "Problem of Rebirth" by Sri Aurobindo. Also there are two chapters in Sri Aurobindo's "Letters on Yoga: Volume 1 titled "Rebirth" and "Free Will, Karma" etc that you would want to check out."


Jal adds:
"I feel there is some confusion regarding the terms "probability distribution", etc., as used by Shri RM,. Terms "probabilistic", "non-deterministic", etc. - all allude to the concept of uncertainty. This uncertainty may stem from two possible sources and thus these terms may be understood to have two different shades of meaning:

Randomness: Dharma does not admit randomness, which is just another term for lawlessness, an antonym for Dharma. Hence this concept of randomness is Dharma-viruddh and hence must be shunned. I am almost sure randomness is NOT what Shri RM means when he uses the term "probabilistic".

Dynamic-ness: The other concept pertains to the ever-changing, fluid nature of Reality, which too leads to uncertainty. However, unlike randomness, this concept does not betray any lawlessness or anti-science character. It does agree with a law-based if-then determinism, in compliance with science... However the condition itself being fundamentally indeterminable (mainly because of consciousness and fundamental freedom of the self), the resultant fact too is indeterminable. Thus while admitting non-determinism, this concept is quite Dharma-sangat and should be adopted. (This is also a strong retort against fatalism that is unnecessarily imposed on the law of karma and hence important to understand.)"


Rajiv comment: Distinction between uncertainty in the cosmos and uncertainty in human ability and perception. Latter means inherent limit in the ordinary mind. All science, physics, knowledge is in the latter realm - i.e. wnat is know-able."

RMF Summary: Week of February 9 - 15, 2013

February 9
Deepak Chopra gives another glaring example of his being in the Stag
Jalan posts: 
In a recent article on Linked-in (http://goo.gl/uqK2N) Deepak Chopra talks of consciousness/awareness as a principal part of leadership - clearly, the spiritual/psychological ideas have been picked up from Hinduism but he has been successful at completely de-contextualising them. (I even feel he is force-fitting the spiritual ideas into the sphere of business management, as is fashionable nowadays.) 

What is particularly remarkable is that he writes "The most ancient wisdom traditions say, Know that one thing by which all else is known." Ah he is shy to say "The Upanishads say..." since this great human inquiry comes from the Chhandogya Upanishad ("What is that by knowing which all else is known?") What "traditionS" is he talking of? It is singularly to be found in Hinduism. DC either suffers from deep inferiority complex and/or he is simply trying to be more acceptable to the western audiences who are his target market... "

Shiva responds:
"If these are his views, he has his ideas wrong.

Consciousness is not a tool to be used for leadership. if you are chasing consciousness to be a better leader, its the wrong idea. You will end up getting bliss trips, and not concentrate on Karma yoga.
...Management professionals end up using yoga, [spirituality] as some escape from pressures of worklife, its no different than a healthier version of cigarettes. One has to integrate work and life as single stream, where the work itself becomes joy.
One of my professors in indias top institutions, is a brahmakumari follower. He is always in a meditative state of bliss consciousness, but is more like drugged rather than aware. He is one of the worst professors around...

Rajiv comment: There are multiple points above, each requiring its own response. For instance,

1) raising consciousness can be useful to become a better manager or for that matter improve oneself in daily life in general. Yoga is not only for escape to moksha from the real world.

2) The point about brahmakumari escapism as some kind of intoxicant is valid, and this applies to a large number of modern Hindu movements in vogue. "

Saket adds:
"My Vedanta guru explains leadership in this way- there is leader, there is group to be led, leadership is how the leader relates to the group being led. One may easily find the principle of one brahman and its multiple manifestation but analogy is not complete. To understand the multiple manifestation maya one must understand the brahman. Hence I concur with Rajiv Ji's observation no. 1. 

... even Arjuna has a session of Jnana yoga before he pursued the path of karma yoga. Hence they exist in combination. One can not impose strict categories like heaven or hell.
On third point about  Management professionals end up using yoga, spirituality as some escape from pressures of work life and a prof in a meditative state of bliss consciousness; there is a precise injunction in
Isavasyo Upanishad mantra 9 on this state of mind. This is what the master says:
Those who worship avidya ignorance enter into blinding darkness; but those who revel in vidya knowledge
enter as it were into greater darkness than that..." 

Poonam adds:
"I know hoe deepak chopra packages the Hindu Vedic Knowledge wisdom in a western context totally refuses to mention its Hindu origins. But he does not forget to patent copyright his books, so that he can het the financial benefit from them. But he has a partner /or friend, Wayne Dyer. The Dyer Chopra families, it appears, are very close, frequently vacation together all over the world in India. I remember watching Wayne Dyer often on PBS during their fund raising marathons, where he would the patrons were given for te highest contribution level, a set of books, workbooks, DVDs, CDs. conduct seminars specially for PBS. what he called "the whole enchilada). I listened to a lot of his seminars, he often referred to his experiences during the time he spent with Neem Karoli Baba in India, often mantioned him as his Guru..."

February 11
"The Permanence Of Ideas
Ganesh posts: Came across this article in today's ...Times of India. A fair enough take on Sanathana Dharma with Maha Kumbh as the backdrop. Evidence of chapter titled "order and chaos" from Sri Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different clearly visible."
   
Rahul comments on the false equivalence of Brahma and Abraham in the above post:
"p251 of BD has a section about Sanskrit non-translatable's that explains Brahman as the all-expansive ultimate reality which creates all and lives
in all and transcends all. The J-C God is the creator of the universe and *distinct* and separate from it. Whereas Brahman is immanent, not merely the creator but IS that world. Brahman and its manifestation are inseparable."   

February 12 (continuing from last week)
One of the UTurn patterns: An example
One of several patterns of Uturns is when the scholar takes Hindu contributions to the West, and reclassifies them as "Asian" or something broader, in order to...  

Raj comments:
"This is truly very disappointing & unfortunate. Based on the description, I guess this is referring to []Beck? I knew he had received funding, so when I came across his books on Amazon I assumed they were outcomes of research funded by Infinity Foundation. The local American Kirtan groups who know about his research will be utterly shocked to learn this ....  If after almost his entire career of research, deep cultural & personal involvement with Indian classical music & artists, he can so easily abdicate his responsibility towards truth, fairness & integrity, it is a complete betrayal of trust..."

February 13 
Are all religions really the same according to Vedas?
Rohit asks : "ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadanti" is often quoted to mean that Hindus accept all religions as different ways to the same truth. Phil Goldberg [see American Veda posts in this blog archive to learn more about PG] has quoted this expression to suggest that Hindus subscribe to sameness and hence do not object to treating Hinduism as a deli by other religions.Following is the verse in Rig Veda where this quote comes from.  There is no way such a meaning can be ascribed to it....Rigveda 1.164.46...

Manas responds:
"...The savant Sita Ram Goel has addressed this matter as well. Quoted below from his book, Defense of Hindu Society:
**************************** The one Vedic verse which modern Hindus quote most frequently is the third quarter (caraNa) of Rigveda 1.164.46..."

Surya also provides some excellent feedback:
"Proposition: All religions are equal - This formulation is understood to mean equal in some particular sense and not in the sense that all religions are identical.

Response: Since it is self-evident that any two religions have some noticeable differences, "equal" cannot mean identical.  It can mean equal in some particular sense.  All religions are equal as religious entities in the same sense as all individuals are equal as legal entities.  ...Rather, what is meant is that no individual is entitled to a privileged position.  Nor does it mean that one person cannot be picked in preference over another based on differences.  Thus, what Hinduism is saying is that all religions are equal in the sense that they all make truth-claims and none of the can claim its truth-claims to be true and there proceed to null-doze all others to be false.  

"All religions are equal" acquires the same revolutionary force which the cry "All me are created equal" had on the lips of those who stormed the Bastille.

Proposition: All religions are One - If ultimately everything is Brahman, and all there is Brahman, then any differences between religions is superficial and perceived as real because of ignorance.  Therefore, all religions are one when one looks beyond their superficial differences.

Response:  The idea of oneness in "All religions are one" has been made one with the idea of oneness of Brahman.  The two have been collapsed into one claiming that the collapse is justified by non-duality ideas of Advaita.  Advaita does not say that manifestation of the Universe and differentiation of things manifest are homogeneous in ultimate reality.  The key element to remember when talking about ultimate reality is not the "oneness" but the "indescribability", not its unity but ineffability.  

If the ideas of oneness are not the same, then what do Hindus mean by oneness in saying "All religions are One"?  Hindu idea of oneness for religions is an idea of tolerance.  Hindu idea of tolerance is as much connected to Hindu theism as with Hindu non-duality.  

Proposition: All religions are the same - This formulation is understood to mean that all religions are means to the same end, furnishing men with different but partial insights into nature of reality of equal value.

Response: This position holds that all religions are merely paths and do not have any truth associated with their particulars.  Thus, differences in particulars of the religions is irrelevant to the ultimate truth.  They merely are different paths to the same goal or destination and hence ultimately false.

This is at best an extreme position even for Advaita which asserts the dependent reality of Saguna Brahman and the Universe which are not false but relative truths.   Besides, Hindus who are non-Advaitins certainly do not accept that their path is false.

Proposition: All religions are essentially the same - This formulation suggests that, upon careful enquiry, one finds that the essence of all religions is the same.  Their differences are only superficial.  

Response: A generality of all religions has been postulated called the essence with all religions as particulars of this general essence.  Problem with this is that an essence is posited but we are not told what the essence really consists of.  At a minimum, there needs to be an argument cannot but be based on a common, general essence.  This has not been done either.

Proposition: All religions have an abiding sense of the Universal - ..there is an abiding sense of the Universal, then this Universal has to exist independent of the religions it abides in.  Why?  Many religions have a known beginning and some have disappeared.  Therefore, what is abiding is not the particulars of religions but the Universal essence that is contained in all of them.

Response: This argument suffers from not establishing that there needs to be a common abiding sense of the Universal.  It also fails to offer any indication of what this shared sense of Universal is.

Question: Can the Hindu position be "All religions are true?".  If so, what is its intended meaning?

Response: Yes, it is the Hindu position.  It is best understood as the diametric opposite of "My religion alone is true and all else are false."  The intended meaning is "Each of the religions may be true or false.  When Hindus use words like same or valid or equal or equally true or One, they are not suggesting Homogeneity.  Because of the metaphysical nature of essential claims of a religion, there is no way of ascertaining its truth or falsity.  Thus, one cannot be designated as truth and the rest designated as false."

Reference: All Religions Are: Equal? One? True? Same?: A Critical Examination of Some Formulations of the Neo-Hindu Position

Arvind Sharma

Philosophy East and West
Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1979), pp. 59-72
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press .."

Wadhwa adds:
"....

Commenting on western scholars' Vedic interpretation and particularly of 'ekam sad' (RV 1-164-46), Sri Aurobindo (in a chapter on Dayananda  and the Veda) writes:

 

"An interpretation of  Veda must stand or fall by its central conception of the Vedic religion and the amount of support given to it by the intrinsic evidence of the Veda itself.  Here Dayananda's view is quite clear, its foundation inexpugnable.   The Vedic hymns are chanted to the one Deity under many names which are used and even designed to express his qualities and powers. The Vedic rishis ought surely to have known something about their own religion, more,  let us hope than Roth or Max Muller and this is what they knew."

 

Sri Aurobindo further states "We are aware how modern scholars twist away from the evidence.  This hymn they say was a late production, this loftier idea which it expresses with so clear a force rose up somehow in the later Aryan mind or was borrowed by those ignorant fire-worshippers, sun-worshippers, sky-worshippers from their cultured and philosophic Dravidian enemies.  But throughout the Veda we have confirmatory hymns and expressions: Agni or Indra or another is expressly hymned as one with all the other gods.  Agni contains all other divine powers within himself, the Maruts are described as all the gods, one deity is addressed by the names of others as well as his own, or most commonly, he is given as Lord and King of the universe, attributes only appropriate to the Supreme Deity......"
 
February 15
NRI Experiences -- The way Hindus deal with Death
Venkat shares:
".... At Jeevodaya we assist terminally ill cancer patients die with dignity making their last days on earth as pleasant and pain free as possible

Hindus generally have a pretty awful way to farewell the dear departed following age old traditions that need a big over haul:

Yesterday 28th March 2008, I had to attend the Funeral of a good friend of mine.

Anthony[]..., was a maths teacher at a Girls
High School, was a great Rugby player when young and coached my sons Rugby team.

When I fell ill in the year ..., Tony stepped in unasked as Anand¹s God Father, took him under his wings and steered him through his ... Exams....

Soon after Tony was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer and ... the Cancer had spread to his brain and was terminal. Tony passed away on Easter Friday....
.....Over all the mourners gave a fitting farewell to a nice man. The Club members gave a guard of honour and sang in chorus
Considering I have lived in Sydney since ...., I have spent half my life in Australia and the first half in India, something was bugging me. Why can we Hindus not treat dead people with more love and respect ?
Driving back home my thought went fleeting back to the funeral I had to attend in February this year while I was in Madras. He was a relative of mine, ... and had had a grand life and died in his sleep.
Family members were told that the cremation would be in the morning. ....the body was moved outside the house and placed on the ground on the drive way. We all stood around while the professional cremator ( what ever you call him ) blew the Chonk and the Bugle ( for want of a
better word). He did this several times sending shivers down our spines.
I looked up at the sky and the apartments around the house. One by one curtains were drawn and windows closed shut to cut out the scary noise as well as keep the bad luck out of their houses.
The entire process was appalling, with the corpse being de robed and bathed and clad in a white cloth in the drive way. A make shift cloth curtain was used and ladies were asked to look the other way. His jewelry were removed
unceremoniously. Garlands were placed on the body and close relatives walked around the body thrice and before we even realised the body was carried away by pall bearers to the cemetery for cremation.
I am sitting here comparing the two funerals and keep wondering why in the name of religion we treat our dead in such an appalling manner. No one said a kind word about the man and there were no prayers offered by family and friends.
This is a non Brahmin funeral I am talking about and the Brahmin funerals are worse. The minute a man or a woman dies, the body is placed outside the house and within a matter of minutes the corpse is wrapped in a cloth and
placed on a bamboo frame and marched off.
If this bit is bad you must think of the appalling conditions at the cemetery or the new Indian crematoriums. Abandoned buildings in ruins that are filthy, operated by scavengers who ask for mourners for money for every
thing. On one occasion we had to wait there with the body for a few hours as there was some mix up and one of the furnaces malfunctioned.
NRIs I should say have made funerals respectable....I prefer the Christian way of farewelling dead people and am glad Hindu NRIs have adopted a similar style...."

Moderator's question:
"Below reference from Venkat is an interesting example of
ignorant Indian's using a really broad brush to paint Indic Antyeshti (funeral) traditions as 'bad'. Whether genuine or just a conversion ploy, it will rattle those Hindus who are unaware of the profoundly organic/existential & well
thought Samskaaras inherent in all Indic traditions, which have inspired almost all Asian civilizations to incorporate these frameworks into their practices.
I wonder what would members' response be to this Australian deracinated Hindu who prefers the Christian ways of bereavement practises." 

 

[Also refer to prior RMF threads on Vegetarianism here].
February 13
Vegetarianism is India's curse, it must be ditched
Srinath initiates the debate: 
This was first suggested by someone in the sixties, but the green revolution made such discussions moot. Hunger in India is more due to poverty or problems with food distribution than the non-availability of food, and so such "solutions" are unnecessary. Besides, no sensible person worth their salt would make such a statement today, with a much better understanding of the environmental effects of animal husbandry, the amount of grain that is currently diverted to cows for beef production in the West (especially the US), and the fact that world population could top 15 billion by the middle of the century or at least by the end of it. Most nutritional guidelines are advocating lowering the consumption of red meat rather than increasing, and so this article again misses the mark. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's probably worth investigating the UK Independent newspaper's motivations....."

Rajiv comment: Farm land is more efficiently utilized to feed vegetarians than non-vegetarians. This is well established. From a given amount of acreage one can feed 3 to 5 times as many vegetarians as non-vegetarians. There are also studies on how non-vegetarianism costs environmental problems. If the argument raised by the opponent is based on economics and social well being, then we must respond in kind and not cite a moral response only. 

Deen says:

"1. Grass/leaves eating animals have long intestine and carnivorous animals have short intestine. Human beings have long intestine.
2. Grass/leaves eating animals drink water by sucking and carnivorous animals use their tongue for taking water in. Human beings drink by sucking/swallowing..."

Arihant says:

" In my honest opinion, Hindus are mostly cowards and vegetarian weaklings as well as spiritually corrupt by not following their Aryan Vedic forefathers or Aryaputras like Shri Ram, Maharaj Kaushik turned Brahmarishi Vishwamitra, King Shibi, Maharishi Agastya and so on. All of these great personalities used to hunt and eat animal flesh and were manly Seers and/or King-Warriors who
would strike into the hearts of their enemies. Greatest Vedic sacrifice Ashwamedha Yajna or Horse sacrifice for expansion of empires and political power demands sacrifice of the ceremonial horse or Ashwa into 36 pieces...."

Wadhwa provides Vedic and other Hindu text references to rebut prior posts:

"....Vedas and Vegetarian diet:

Atharva Veda says:

1. Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam

Esha vamm bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha (Atharva Veda 6.140.2)

Abstract meaning: O Teeth! You eat rice, barley, gram and sesame.  These cereals are specifically meant for you.  DO NOT KILL THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF BEING FATHERS AND MOTHERS.

2.  Anago hatya vai bheema kritye.  Maa no gaamashvam purusham vadheeh.(Atharva Veda 10.1.29)

Abstract meaning: It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents.  Do not kill our cows, horses and people....

....The Vedas do not at all sanction animal sacrifices.  The synonym for the Yajna in the Vedic lexicon called Nighantu is Adhvara.  The Word has been explained by Yaskacharya, an ancient vedic etymologist, as:

Adhvara eti yajyanam dhvarati hinsa karma tatpratished Nirukta 1.7 

Adhvara means where there is no violence of any kind (or the act which is perfectly non-violent).  This word(Adhvara) has been used in all the four Vedas hundreds of times clearly proving that the Vedas do not sanction animal sacrifices.  

In the Sam Veda-176,  too it is clearly stated - We  act according to the injunctions contained in the vedic hymns.  We never kill animals.

Meat-eating is not sanctioned by the Vedas.  On the other hand it is strongly condemned and prohibited.  Rig Veda 10.87.16  says....
 

Who then started such obnoxious practice of animal sacrifice?  Bhismacharya replies to Yudhishtra in Mahabharata (Shanti Parva - 261.9) "Dhortey pravriti  yajney naitadveydeshu vidyatey" i.e., Taking Wine, fish and flesh of animals, intoxicating drinks of various kinds, etc. is not sanctioned by the Vedas at all.  It is the wicked people that have introduced such ignoble practices. ....

In the Vedas the cows are called Aghanya i..e, which are never to be killed.  Ashvamedha means the proper administration of the State to promote or consolidate power of the State as is evident from Shatpatha Brahmana. 

Source:  "Teachings of the Vedas": An introduction by Pt.Dharma Dev Vidya Martand, pub.by Shree Ghudmal Prahaladkumar Arya Dharmarth Nyas, Hindaun City, Raj.

Swami Vidyanand Saraswati, (formerly Principal and Fellow Punjab University) writes while quoting Atharva Veda 1.16.4 "Capital punishment has been ordered for one who kills or tortures our cows or men, deserves to be shot dead, because such a person is a murderer(viraha).  How can we then conceive the killing of animals in any yajna which has been termed as the noblest act or 'shreshthatam karma' .  It has been generally held by western scholars and their zealous followers here, that horse were sacrificed as the Ashvamedha.  But the word Ashvamedha, during the Vedic period, was used in the sense of administration or welfare of the state(Rashtram va Ashvamedha -  Shatpatha 13-1-6).  ...

To support his argument in favour of  non-vegetarian diet Mr.Arihant in his mail has quoted Swami Vivekanand while conveniently ignoring the views of Maharishi Dayanand (1824-1883) who started a signature campaign against cow slaughter and sent a memorandum to Queen Victoria.  Maharishi Dayanand writes in his book Satyarth Prakash  "Neither we should kill, nor allow others to kill animals like cow, who in one generation does good to four lakhs seventy five thousand and six hundred people....

I can only say that anyone who looks at our vast ancient literature with an illogical, subjective and selective approach without taking into consideration its dominating spirit as well as the interpolated part shall neither be able to explode the myths nor find the gems of deeper Vedic truths..."

Viswa comments:

"....While I do not consider vegetarianism is a curse - rather it is a boon for a sustainable and an eco-friendly civilization (as we all know from recent years as to how much corn and soybean is being consumed in China to feed the pigs that are meant for human consumption - http://pigpenning.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/report-feeding-chinas-pigs/ ) -
my own time spent amongst the Ho-tribes in Chhotanagpur exposed me to a very astonishing and wonderful discovery.
Generally, the tribes do not eat beef or pork or even meat in general because of poverty. T heir poverty does not allow them to consume anything more than a chapatti or soaked rice... However, during times of celebrations / festivities - almost all of these festivities related to either agriculture or hunting - an entire tribe will consume a pig or cow or goat..." 

 

Thatte asks:
".... would like someone in this group shed some light on this issue of the Rishis and ancient Hindus eating meat, especially beef.Please note the verse 6.4.18 of  Brihadaranyaka  Upanisad.   Ramakrishna Math (Chennai) English translation of this shloka says,

" He who wishes, May a son be born to me, who will be a reputed scholar, attend assemblies, speak words that one likes to hear, be versed in all the Vedas and attain full longevity", should have rice cooked with meat .."

Chittaranjan responds to prior comment:
"...The translation of that Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mantra mentioned by you (6.4.18) is correct. But please note that this mantra relates to a ritual, i.e., the ritual of getting a son with certain characteristics, and is not to be
understood as a general prescription for people to follow in their day-to-day lives. In rituals, as in medicine, consuming meat that is prohibited otherwise may sometimes be allowed..." 

Sanjay responds to Arihant:
"...Arihant: Two greatest exponents of Yoga in 19th century universally recognized, first Swami Vevekanand and  secondly Evolutionary Yogi Sri Aurobindo both used to eat red- meat(goat meat or mutton), egg, chicken and fish. That did not stop  them from transcending all Gunas(modes of material nature) and  attain highest enlightenment in the history of evolution.

Not entirely true.  There was a time before his Self-realization when Sri Aurobindo gave up meat. He said : "With the vegetarian diet I was feeling light and pure. It is only a belief that one can't do without meat; it is a question of habit" (Evening Talks, vol 3, p 88)


Alberruni  the 11th century visitor to India offers a possible reason for why cow-eating was forbidden in ancient India.  This is the passage from the book

Alberuni: Some Hindus say that in the time before Bharata (i.e.Mahabharata war) it was allowed to eat the meat of cows, and that there then existed sacrifices part of which was the killing of cows. After that time, however, it had been forbidden on account of ...
.....As for the economical reason, we must keep in mind that the cow is the animal which serves man in travelling by carrying his loads, in agriculture in the works of ploughing and sowing, in the household by the milk and the product made thereof. Further, man makes use of its dung, and in winter-time even of its breath. Therefore it was forbidden to eat cow's meat; as also Alhajjaj forbade it, when people complained to him that Babylonia became more and more desert.
The text can be read online
(Edward Sachau. Alberuni's India. ....."

Vikram comments:
"...Tapan... maybe on to something although slightly reversed. It maybe that in places with plenty, people include it and in those places where its scarce, they turn vegetarian...
This would suggest ecological economics plays a very important part in the Hindu's Diet and therefore more sustainable than any other diet (even purely vegetarian ones). Its goes back to the point that the Hindu strives to reduce himsa and does not differentiate between plant/animals..."

Varun shares some useful links and statistics:
"....

Some good articles in favor of vegetarianism.

Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources - 

Meat-eaters soak up the world's water - 

Vegetarian Diet May be Necessary to Prevent Global Water and Food Shortage - 

13 Breathtaking Effects of Cutting Back on Meat - 

Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States -

Some imp one-liners from these articles:

1. On average, it takes 1,790 litres of water to grow 1kg of wheat compared with 9,680 litres of water for 1kg of beef.

2. It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it does to make one calorie from plant protein.

3. Excrement produced by chickens, pigs, and other farm animals: 16.6 billion tons per year -- more than a million pounds per second (that's 60 times as much as is produced by the world's human population -- farmed animals produce more waste in one day than the U.S. human population produces in 3 years). This excrement is a major cause of air and water pollution..."

Srinath comments:

"....Many Hindus are vegetarians today. Period! Whatever be the reason for that, vegetarianism is a noble practice and it is supported by well documented evidence of the inherent cruelty of animal husbandry, and the sheer inefficiency and environmental costs of using grain to feed animals that feed us. Just check out PETA's site if you don't believe me - now, if the fact that Westerners are advocating vegetarianism will not convince you, I don't know what will.

Thirdly, both Upanishadic truths and modern genetics tells us that we are all pretty much the same. Vegetarianism is fundamentally a recognition of this fact. We should be proud that Hindus came to this conclusion before the advance of genetics and PETA.

In summary, it is extremely unfortunate that Hindus cannot be proud of their vegetarian beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are supported by advances in science. How can then we accuse Westerners of not respecting us and our philosophy?..." 

Closing statements:
 
Rohit shares info on a vegetarian diet works for body builders

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/no-meat-muscle-4-rules-for-building-mass-on-vegetarian-diet.html

Read about Sitko, a vegan body builder ...

Menon (quoting from another egroup)

On Vegetarianism - Part-1 By Swami Sivananda

...
Sage Uddalaka instructs his son Svetaketu: "Food when consumed, becomes
threefold. The gross particles become the excrement, the middling ones flesh,
and the fine ones the mind. My child, when curd is churned, its fine particles
which rise upwards form butter. Thus, my child, when food is consumed, the fine
particles which rise upwards form the mind. Hence, verily, the mind is food".

Three Kinds of Diet

Diet is of three kinds, viz., Sattvic diet, Rajasic diet, and Tamasic diet. In
the Bhagavad-Gita, Lord Krishna says to Arjuna: "The food which is dear to each
is threefold. The food which increases vitality, energy, vigour, health, and joy
and which are delicious, bland, substantial, and agreeable are dear to the pure.
The passionate persons desire foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively
hot, pungent, dry, and burning, and which produce pain, grief, and disease. The
food which is stale, tasteless, putrid, rotten, and impure, is dear to the
Tamasic".

.... Fish, eggs, meat, salt, chillies, and asafoetida are Rajasic
food-stuffs; they excite passion and make the mind restless, unsteady, and
uncontrollable. Beef, wine, garlic, onions, and tobacco are Tamasic food-stuffs.
They exercise a very unwholesome influence on the human mind and fill it with
emotions of anger, darkness, and inertia.

Srinath:

....at least 4000 years of adherence to Sanatana Dharma have resulted in a significant proportion of Hindus who are vegetarian, and that today, this behavior is being accepted as healthier, nobler, and perhaps even necessary for mankind. To those who say that eating meat is their prerogative, I would simply say that many Hindus eat meat, and so this is not about converting those who will eat from doing so. We must all weigh the existing evidence and the call of our conscience.

....However, it is not only a moral issue, since it could develop into a serious resource/environmental issue. This could be especially troublesome in India where environmental laws are weak and enforcement is lax. ...However, these arguments are useful for the purposes of rebutting Western claptrap that animals are a protein resource that is being overlooked.

Lastly, I would like to suggest that in a culture in which vegetarianism is important, the importance of cows makes sense, since milk is an essential and necessary component of a Hindu vegetarian diet, and certain nutrients like vitamin B12 are not available in any significant amount in plants (besides the fact that milk is an important source of calcium, protein, and many other nutrients). But then why venerate cows and ban their slaughter? I would suggest that this is to ensure their humane treatment, since they are animals that are necessary for our food source and must be reared and tended. Seen in this light, cows are indeed Go-Maata as they provide needed and necessary nourishment, and if their veneration ensures their humane treatment, this is a good thing. To me at least, 4000 years of Hindu wisdom makes perfect sense and may even be finally getting acceptance today."

Krishnamurthy:          

I must also add that the word 'Ashwamedha' is wrognly interpreted as 'Horse Sacrifice'. The connotation of the word 'ashwa' is 'ashnute vyaapnoteeti ashwah'. [One who expands; or one who radiates]. The word 'medhaa ' is NOT sacrifice. The connotation is 'maatrashaH edhati anayaa iti medhaa" - [That by which one can determine exactly is Medhaa]. The famous 'Ashwamedhaa sukta' (Rik. 1-164), which is widely misinterpreted as 'Horse Sacrifice' neither mentions a horse nor describes a sacrifice. It is a sukta, wherein Dheerghatamaa Maharshi explains the science of Cosmos. Unfortunately most of the Commentators are not exposed to Science; and hence go astray. All these I have elaborated in my book 'The Science of Hinduism', pending publication.


5.  Shambhu  responds to Thattey's question

I have doubts on these translations.

BrihadaaraNyaka 6-4 deals with garbhaadaana and naamakaraNa.

Its five mantras 14-18 should be understood together - here RiSi Yaajnavalkya narrates the kinds of food to be taken by a couple desiring a son (mantras 14-16 and 18) or daughter (mantra 17) of Vedic learning.

In the context of the preceding four mantras, mantra 18's three words (maamsa, ukSaNa, and RSabha) can be connected to meat eating only with great fantasy. Moreover, the words ukSaNa and RSabha are in triteeyaa vibhakti (i.e., with/by ukSaNa, with/by RSabha). Lastly, the Rigvedic word for bull is ukSANa and not ukSaNa.

Therefore: maamsa here is the fleshy part or pulp of fruit. ukSaNa is sprinkling (of water), and RSabha is aumkaara. The word pra+ukSaNa (prokSaNa) is in use in many Indic languages even today, and its ritual usage is widespread in any purification ceremony (udakashaanti, puNyaaham, maarjana during the daily sandhyaavandanaa, etc.)...."

 

RMF Summary: Week of July 25 - 31, 2011

July 26

Protest 'Sita sings the blues' showing at NY's Starlight Pavilion ! Srikumar posts: ...We have received complaints from several Hindus about the showing of a film 'Sita sings the blues' at the Starlight Pavilion in New York next Thursday (21st July). 'Sita sings the blues', which its producers claim to be based on Sage Valmiki's Ramayan, is actually a denigrating parody of the Ramayan ! Through this animation film, animator Nina Paley has shown irreverent parallels between her own heartbreak and the divine story of Lord Rama and Mother Sita,... Patanjali notes: "The organizers and host have decided to cancel showing the film after mountain of complaints from the Hindu community." Ramanan makes an important point: "Love this one in particular: "In the Ramayana, Sita is only a footnote in the story, but obviously my film is about Sita and her suffering." Source: http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html The above statement by Ms. Paley shows her ignorance of the epic. Valmiki has this to say about his own work: ... The entire epic Ramayana is primarily about the sublime conduct of Sita, and secondly about the slaying of Ravana.   Chitra adds: " ... It's interesting to me that this movie "Sita Sings the Blues" has resurfaced – and that the main thrust of the anger at this movie is still focused at Nina Paley. I was furious at this movie.  But not so much at Paley.  Paley is a gifted animator – her interpretation of the character of Rama and the plight of Sita is in line with western perspectives – I found no real surprises there.   To me, the real significance of her movie and the reaction to it is what it tells us about our fellow Indians. You see, I was INCENSED by the commentary of her "shadow puppet" narrators of the Ramayana.  To me, they were a painful reminder of how utterly (almost deliberately) clueless some Indians are about their own cultural legacy.  Some remarks by the "shadow puppets" were so asinine I flinched. " Anila suggests: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzTg7YXuy34>]. Just click below the video, click on the Flag. In the drop-down menu, select 'Violent & Repulsive Content'. With enough votes, this video will have to be taken off YouTube." Rajiv Malhotra comments: When this movie was being made, our very own Anju Bhargava (yes, the Hindu American leader featured in Breaking India for her complicity with the Christian nexus) was approached by the makers. She gave them a favorable reinforcement of the script, seeing it as women's  empowerment. Only after it came out several years later, and caused a stir, did Anju realize the problem she had been a part of. This is just one example of how ill-informed many of our "leaders" tend to be - focusing to build their personal profile with appointments, high profile publicity, etc. Serious research, reading, intellectual inquiry, etc., is not natural to them...  Manas notes the response of a known Hindu baiter: "Salil Tripathi takes the opportunity of Paley's movie show being cancelled to throw muck on Hindus, for among other things, critiquing Coutright [for his concoctions], etc. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/24/sita-sings-the-blues-hindu-film-causes-a-stir-in-queens.html Instead of calling for "bans", there should be a scholarly analysis and pointing out of mistakes." Doclse007 responds: "Having seen this movie for the first time a few days ago I am in a position to make an informed comment. The movie distorts the Ramayana and makes a mockery of what we have held sacred for generations. If Ms. Paley wanted to make a movie about her life based on a love story in popular literature then there are many to choose from, including the works of Shakespeare. West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet. The Ramayana does not lend itself to this kind of treatment and therefore her argument about artistic freedom lacks substance. .."    July 27  Is the Hajj an act of apostasy? Comments? Namaste, In view of the recent discussion about the Taj Mahal, would anyone care to weigh in on this article by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch. Harihara responds: "But the idea of drawing similarity between "Kaaba" with "Kaabali" is wrong. Kapalishwara is one of the epithets for Shiva. Since Tamizh doesn't have a proper phonetics background especially, after the admixture of Sanskrit words, Tamilians pronounce both "p" and "b" accordingly it presents to their tongue..." Chitra is thankful: " Thank you for that much-needed clarification,  Mr. Subramanian. I don't doubt that ancient Hindus had cultural and trade contacts with Arabs, but the kind of  etymological  eureka-moments such as the following excerpt from the article make me wince and reach for the Hajj-Mola..." July 27 Retired IB Officer on Binayak Sen-- Western interests behind Sen's ' ... From: Madhukar Ambekar <madhukar_ambekar@...> Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:41 AM Subject: Retired IB Officer on Binayak Sen To: Madhukar Ambekar... July 27 Re: More of the myth-- Growth of schedulaed castes and tribes N. S. Rajaram provides yet a useful reference. One of many expert recommendations you will find within these archives. "Please read K.S. Lal's "The Growth of Scheduled Tribes and Castes in Medieval India" for a scholarly study of this issue. Lal was an outstanding scholar worth reading" July 27 Report of my Waves talk http://www.waves-india.com/WAVES_Rport_Rajiv_Lecture.htm... July 28 List of "Secular" Intellectuals named hosted by Ghulam Nabi Fai Sagar posts: S. Gurumurthy, has written an article which has a list of "seculars" and "liberals" named by FBI as guest of Ghulam Nabi Fai(who was recently arrested). The... July 29 More of the myth NeeShabda writes: The task of breaking the 'Aryan Myth' is arduous and never ending, but as all informed educated Indian it is our individual responsibility to continue the work that Rajiv Malhotra has started - to confront and open a dialogue with the Indologist, teacher, layman, anyone who is perpetuating the myths and downgrading the Indian civilization. I happen to find this site called mrdowling.com," and read some of his online course on India. I am sharing some chapters with all of you..." Neeraj asks: "Till now, I have not been able to find any reference of untouchability as a practice in Hindu/Sanatan/Vedic/Arya dharm, on the basis of caste. Can anyone provide such a reference " Raj provides many useful links in his response: "Further reading: [1] *MUST READ* - By Vishal Agarwalji - http://www.docstoc.com/docs/67764904/The-Hindu-Caste-System-Vishal-Agarwal [2] Section D here - http://www.letindiadevelop.org/irochtc/02.shtml [3] Related messages posted here earlier: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/102 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/129 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/184 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/221 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/440 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/breakingindia/message/433..." Senthil provides some feedback: "Our society is NOT based on any book or authority, and hence it would be futile to find any reference to untouchability in scriptures.. we are a civilization and NOT religion.. As a person coming from rural side, and who have seen untouchability practiced right in my home, i am putting forth the following reality.. 1. Untouchability is NOT practiced just by brahmins.. but by all jaathis.." Vishal is emphatic: "... Hindus are not a Bookish religion but the Shastras are the prime authority for what is correct and what is wrong. Sadachar ranks below shruti and smriti in terms of what constitutes authority in matters of Dharma. Traditions can be correct or incorrect, and they change with time anyway. So they CANNOT constitute what is Sanatana Dharma. The localized, parochial version of Dharma that you conceive has largely ceased to exist today and surely does not belong to the future..."   Mrithak posts: "Below is the quote that I copied from Sankarachaarya's Brahma-sutra-bhaasya regarding the great achaarya's objection to teaching the vedas to the sudras. As i see it the explanation given by Sri Sankarachaarya is more of sanskrit gymnastics. BRAHMA-SUTRA-BHASYA (Topic 9: PSEUDO SUDRA, I.iii.34 & 35)..."  Vishal responds: "... Shri Shankaracharya was conditioned by the times when he wrote his commentary. The context of the story is this: The entire story emphasizes the point that while it is important to be Dharmic, it is not sufficient. Brahmavidya trumps Dharma. Now, Janshruti was a philanthropic and a just king but he had this ego that by his benevolence, everyone in his kingdom was happy. However, the swan belittled his glory in front of that of Raikyamuni Shaktayana (The cart owner, Muni of the Raikas). The very name of the Muni indicates that he was a nomad and therefore not an Arya in the conventional sense, but a Shudra. However, Janashruti judged Raikya by his external appearances and tried to BUY the wisdom that Raikya had by offering him money. Raikya in turn addressed the despearate king, who was grieving for having been slighted relative to Raiky as a Shudra (cock a snook, so to say). It was only when Janashruti offered his daughter as a wife to Raikya that the latter relented.... ...The teaching that Raikya gave to Janashruti also emphasizes that Brahmavidya trumps Dharma (or that excellent Karma is not sufficient for Moksha, and Brahmavidya is the crown of punyakarma)... ...  So far from debarring Shudras from acquiring Brahmavidya, the Upanishad actually shows how a Shudra teacher gives the teaching to a Kshatriya. Likewise, the following story of Satyakama Jabala in the Upanishad shows how a child of unknown parentage becomes qualified to acquire Brahmavidya by virtue of being truthful because a truthful person cannot be a 'abrahmana' (non brahmana'.... ...Far from being 'casteist', the entire Chhandogya Upanishad is actually a very liberating Scripture that shows that Shraddha of lowly dogs trumps ritual of learned Brahmanas, that Brahmavidya of a nomad trumps royal wealth and good deeds, that truth trumps lineage, and that even a person of a high lineage is not really a Brahmana unless he knows the Brahmavidya. And the seventh Prapathaka in turn has the story of Narada and Sanatkumara which shows how all bookish knowledge is of no worth when compared to Spiritual wisdom." July 31 book on similar intervention in south america by Rockefeller, Evange Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil [Paperback]Gerard Colby ...