Leela Naidu on Hinduism

 

Recently, I came to know about late Leela Naidu, a former ‘Miss India’ (1954), actress and socialite. She was the daughter of Dr. Pattipati Ramaiah Naidu, a well-known nuclear physicist of his time and Dr. Marthe Mange Naidu, who was of Swiss-French origin. Leela Naidu grew up in Europe, went to an elite school in Geneva, Switzerland, and later returned to India.

I happened to read some magazine articles written immediately after her death, which focused more on her marital history (she had got married and divorced twice) and on her last years during which she suffered from alcohol addition, health issues and lived a reclusive life in Mumbai. This is natural because the readers are in that somber mood after learning about a famous person’s death and writers and journalists try to feed to his curiosity by talking more about the “last years”. I think this is a huge injustice to the deceased. When we look at a person like Leela Naidu’s whole life in totality, we would find them as winners. But if we focus on multiple divorces, drinking problem, and pitiful death in the end, we lose perspective and are deceived. Therefore, by making this argument, I am trying to dispel all the negativity that was fed into my mind by those journalists and writers who wrote sober obituaries of a splendid person like late Leela Naidu. I can say that after knowing about her life and times, I felt empathy and respect for her.

I also came across a book which was written by Leela Naidu co-authoring Jerry Pinto, titled ‘Leela: A Patchwork Life’. It is interesting to read a portion where she recalls her earliest memories and thoughts on religion. Here is a page where she describes what she thought about Hinduism and how Western people misjudged it.

Leela Naidu on Hinduism:

After reading this, we can only agree with her and feel proud that she had the courage to argue with her instructor at the Catholic school in Geneva and she came out in flying colors! How can some people from other religions brush off symbolisms in Hinduism by taking those literally and then praise their own religions’ similar practices as things of great value?

I hope you enjoyed reading above page from her book. You can find the book here.

- Rahul Tiwary

Travelogue: Maa Durga Mandir Mushahari Block, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

 

Durga Mandir at Mushahri Block, Muzaffarpur (Bihar) is a new Hindu Temple constructed and inaugurated recently. The temple is dedicated to Goddess Durga. It is very conveniently situated at the main road and near the main market.

The deity of Ma Durga is all mesmerizing.

May Ma Durga bless us with strength and energy to cope up with all challenges.

- Rahul Tiwary

Hinduism: Mahabharat: Why Abhimanyu Had a Short Life

In the great war of Mahabharat, although many great warriors fell and a lot of them touch readers, there is one Abhimanyu who touches one and all like no other. It is because of his age – he was only 16 years old at the time he was killed fighting – and the manner in which he was killed by a group of 7 Kaurava warriors while Abhimanyu fought alone. It is one of the most tragic events of the great war.

Some people ask why did Abhimanyu have a short lifespan. Why Lord Krishn let it happen to him, why he did not protect him like he protected Draupadi. I tried to search about it and found the explanation here.

Why Did Abhimanyu Die Young

In Mahabharat, it is mentioned that Abhimanyu was the re-incarnation of son of Chandra, the Moon-God. When Chandra was asked to let his son incarnate on earth, he made a pact that his son will only remain on earth for 16 years, as he could not bear to be separated from him any longer than that. So, Chandra's son was born as the son of Arjuna and Subhadra.

From Mahabharat [Link]:

"And, O monarch, learn that king Yudhishthira was a portion of Dharma; that Bhimasena was of the deity of wind; that Arjuna was of Indra, the chief of the celestials; and that Nakula and Sahadeva, the handsomest beings among all creatures, and unrivalled for beauty on earth, were similarly portions of the twin Aswins. And he who was known as the mighty Varchas, the son of Soma, became Abhimanyu of wonderful deeds, the son of Arjuna. And before his incarnation, O king, the god Soma had said these words to the celestials, 'I cannot give (part with) my son. He is dearer to me than life itself. Let this be the compact and let it be not transgressed. The destruction of the Asuras on earth is the work of the celestials, and, therefore, it is our work as well. Let this Varchas, therefore, go thither, but let him not stay there long. Nara, whose companion is Narayana, will be born as Indra's son and indeed, will be known as Arjuna, the mighty son of Pandu. This boy of mine shall be his son and become a mighty car-warrior in his boyhood. And let him, ye best of immortals, stay (p. 144) on earth for sixteen years. And when he attaineth to his sixteenth year, the battle shall take place in which all who are born of your portions shall achieve the destruction of mighty warriors. But a certain encounter shall take place without both Nara and Narayana (taking any part in it). ...... Then when numberless heroes and mighty car-warriors will return to the charge towards the close of the day, my boy of mighty arms, shall reappear before me. And he shall beget one heroic son in his line, who shall continue the almost extinct Bharata race.' Hearing these words of Soma, the dwellers in heaven replied, 'So be it.' And then all together applauded and worshiped (Soma) the king of stars. p. 145

Message from Abhimanyu’s Story

At the same time, I remember from my childhood how this story is remembered among the masses. In folk stories among common people, it is often mentioned that if Subhadra did not sleep, then Abhimanyu won't have to know only half of the method to handle Chakravyuh. Hence message is that while listening to Satsang or religious programs, we should not fall asleep and need to be attentive otherwise half knowledge can be harmful for us.

Why Shri Krishn Did Not Save Abhimanyu

The reason why Shri Krishn won’t have saved Abhimanyu may also be simply because he would already know about his fate. Hence, he won’t have interrupted in it.

There is another reason which explains how things happened and how different and multiple reasons are responsible for some event.

How Abhimanyu Was Killed

Kauravas had planned a Chakravyuh to trap and kill many warriors from the Pandavas army. It is said that among the Pandav army, only Arjun knew how to handle a Chakravyuh. But on that particular day, he had gone too far away fighting and hence could not reach there in time. Then Abhimanyu came forward and volunteered to try and destroy the Chakravyuh since he had heard about the way to enter it while being in his mother Subhadra’s womb. Although he had not heard about the way to come out of the trap, since the story got interrupted as Subhadra had fallen asleep. Hence it was agreed that while Abhimanyu will take the lead and enter the Chakravyuh, his uncles Beem, Nakul and Sahdev will follow him and also enter it, so that they could tackle the difficult part together and ensure safe return.

But while Abhimanyu went inside the Chakravyuh as planned, Bheem and others were stopped outside by Jayadrath who was a great warrior from Kaurava’s side.

How could Jayadrath stop these great Pandavas?

Jayadrath was king of the Sindhu rajya and married to Duryodhan’s sister Dushala. While Pandavas were serving 12 years “vanvas”, once Jayadrath had seen Draupadi in the jungle and tried to take her as his queen by abducting her. Pandavas got to know about the abduction, chased Jayadrath down and defeated him. Since he was their relative (Duryodhan’s brother-in-law), they did not kill him, but Bheem shaved his head as a mean to disgrace him. Jayadrath wanted to take revenge on Pandavas for this disgrace and hence did harsh penance to earn a boon from Lord Shiv. He asked for a boon that he would be able to defeat the Pandavas. But Lord Shiva told him that it was not possible to defeat Pandavas, but he can give him a boon that for one day, he would be able to control the Pandavas except Arjuna. It was because of this boon, that Jayadrath was able to contain Bheem and other Pandavas outside the Chakravyuh itself.

Therefore, we can see from this incident that Abhimanyu’s death was an event of a big misfortune. Jayadrath’s boon came into play due to which Pandavas' plan of Bheem and others entering Chakravyuh along with Abimanyu did not work. And Arjun was not around that day otherwise he would have been successful in defeating Jayadrath and saving Abhimanyu. And then, all this was not possible since it was planned by fate that Abhimanyu would die young so that he can return to the celestial god Chandra.

Btw, the next day of the fight, Arjun defeated and killed Jayadrath.

Legacy of Abhimanyu

It is another touching story of how Abhimanyu’s wife Uttara was expected at the time of this battle and she gave birth to a son later on - Parikshit. Parikshit goes on to inherit the throne of Hastinapur after Yudhisthir and expands the kingdom and its civilization immensely. After Parikshit, his son Janmejaya goes on to rule.

Therefore, Abhimanyu, even if he died young, in fact shaped the history of our country Bharat Varsha. 

Abhimanyu will always be remembered by one and all for being a great son, a great warrior and someone who sacrificed his life for his Dharma.

- Rahul Tiwary

रामायण: क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? | Hinduism: Was Banishment of Sita a Logical Incident?

क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? ऐसा सोचते ही दो बातें पहले ही आ जाती हैं - क्या धर्म के मामले में "तर्क" का प्रयोग व्यावहारिक है? और क्या "रामायण" को सिर्फ धर्म ग्रन्थ मानना चाहिए या फिर एक ऐतिहासिक अनुलेख भी? पहले, धर्म में तर्क पर आते हैं। किसी भी विषय में यदि तर्क का प्रयोग न किया जा सके तो वह विषय क्या एक सिर्फ "अंध विश्वास" में परिवर्तित नहीं हो जाती? 

मैंने स्वामी विवेकानंद आदि को पढ़ा है। इससे मैंने सीखा कि हमारे धर्म में तर्क करना अच्छा माना गया है। शाश्त्रार्थ के ऊपर पंडित लोग तो कई दिनों तक बहस किया करते थे। आदि शंकराचार्य ने भी किया था। यह ज्ञान मार्ग है। सिर्फ "भक्ति मार्ग" में ही "अंध विश्वास" ठीक माना गया है शायद। पर सिर्फ अंध-विश्वास किसी भी धर्म को आगे नहीं ले जा सकता। अंध विश्वास की कमजोरी को क्रिस्चियन मिशनरीजन ने काफी उपयोगी माना है। वे तर्क के आधार पर हमारे भगवानों को गलत साबित करते थे और लोगों को अपने धर्म को खराब समझाकर धर्मान्तरण कराते। अगर हम खुद ही तर्क करके अपने विश्वास को व्यवहारिकता के आधार पर रखकर प्रतिष्ठित रखेंगे तो कोई बाहरी हमें बेवकूफ नहीं बना पायेगा। 

अब सीता के परित्याग और "उत्तर कांड" या "उत्तर रामायण" के ऊपर आते हैं। रामायण में बहुत सी घटनाएँ हैं जो व्यक्तिगत रूप से मुझे पसंद नहीं हो सकती हैं - जैसे राजा होकर भी उन्होंने केवट को गले लगाया, जो भी जैसा भी हो उनके शरण में आया तो उन्होंने अपनाया - ये सब मुझे "अनावश्यक" और "अति भावुकता" लगी। पर उन्होंने किया और मैंने माना - मैंने इन घटनाओं में अच्छे पक्षों को देखा और इनमे अच्छा सन्देश देखा। इससे ये घटनाएँ मुझे श्री राम की महानता के उदाहरण लगे। पर सीता त्याग और उत्तर रामायण में मुझे एक भी अच्छाई नजर नहीं आई। मैंने खोजकर पढ़ा इस बारे में - तो चक्रवर्ती राजगोपालाचारी और अन्य विद्वानों का लिखा पढ़ा कि उत्तर रामायण बाद में जोड़ा गया खंड है, वाल्मीकि के मूल रामायण के कई शताब्दिओं बाद उसे वाल्मीकि रामायण से जोड़ दिया गया। तब मुझे बात समझ में आई। मैं ऐसा मानूंगा और इसके कारण हैं: 

श्री राम का जन्म एक "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन दर्शित करने के लिए ही नहीं हुआ था। राजा हरिश्चंद्र "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन सन्देश दे चुके थे। तो फिर रामावतार को किस रूप में समझें? जैसा श्री कृष्ण ने गीता में कहा, जब-जब धरती पर पाप की अधिकता होती है, भगवान पाप का नाश करने हेतु अवतार लेते हैं। यही विष्णु के हर अवतार ने किया, नरसिंघ से लेकर परशुराम अवतार से कृष्ण अवतार तक - बुद्ध ने भी अपने तरीके से पाप का नाश ही किया। 

इसीलिए हमें राम के जीवन को विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों से तुलनात्मक रूप में देखना और समझना चाहिए। शिव जी से तुलना नहीं कर सकते, शिव विनाशक हैं, विष्णु पालनकर्ता - राम के जीवन को किसी और देवता से तुलना न करके, विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों के साथ देखकर ही समझना चाहिए।

तो मेरा समझना है कि राम अवतार धरती से राक्षसों (अधर्म) के विनाश और धर्म की स्थापना के लिए हुआ था। (हनुमान जी के अवतार का भी कारण यही था - और श्री राम के कार्य में हाथ बँटाना था।) रावण वध से पहले उन्होंने असंख्य राक्षस मारे और रावण वध के साथ राम अवतार का प्रयोजन पूरा हो गया - ऐसा समझा जा सकता है। तो रावण वध के बाद ,अयोध्या लौटकर राजसिंहासन पर बैठकर राम अवतार ख़त्म हो जाना चाहिए था। विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों को देखकर सोचिये - उनका "प्रयोजन" पूरा होने पर सब चले गए थे। अवतार एक खास प्रयोजन के लिए ही होता है और उसके बाद उसकी जरुरत नहीं रहती। जैसा परशुराम ने भी कहा कि राम के आने पर मेरा प्रयोजन नहीं बचा अब। जैसे राम के आने पर परशुराम अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो गया, वैसे ही रावण वध और सीता को वापस लाने के बाद राम के अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो जाना चाहिए था।

"सीता त्याग" से राम के अवतार का कोई प्रयोजन पूरा होता नहीं दीखता। मुझे इसमें सिर्फ एक सन्देश समझ में आता है और वो है कि "अगर प्रजा गलत सोचे तो राजा को प्रजा की गलत धारणा को सुधारने के बदले प्रजा को सही साबित करने के लिए खुद के धर्म का त्याग कर देना चाहिए"। इसे निम्नांकित बातों से समझें: 

१. राम का धर्म था सीता की रक्षा करना 

२. राम ने शादी के समय सीता की रक्षा का वचन दिया था और अग्नि के समक्ष प्रतिज्ञा ली थी 

३. सीता निर्दोष थीं और निर्दोष को सजा देना अधर्म है 

४. प्रजा की धारणा गलत थी और अगर राम सीता का त्याग कर देते तो प्रजा की गलत धारणा सही हो जाती - "देखो सीता ने कुछ गलत किया था, तभी तो राम ने उनका त्याग किया?", लोग ऐसा सोचते 

५. सीता की अग्नि परीक्षा हो चुकी थी और इस कारण फिर से परित्याग की घटना अतार्किक लगती है 

इन कारणों से मुझे सीता परित्याग की घटना तर्कसंगत नहीं लगती। श्री राम के धर्मपरायण जीवन से यह घटना और ऐसे व्यवहार की कल्पना तर्क संगत नहीं लगती। यही लगता है कि यह कहानी बाद में जोड़ी गई है, जैसा सी. राजगोपालाचारी जी ने भी लिखा है। क्या ऐसा "बाद में जोड़ना" संभव था? हिन्दू सनातन धर्म के सारे ग्रन्थ पहले "मौखिक" रूप में ही थे, लिखा उन्हें बहुत बाद में गया। पुस्तक रूप हमारे ग्रन्थ में तो हाल में प्रिंटिंग के अविष्कार के बाद आये। मौखिक से लिखित रूप में भी लेखन एक बार में नहीं हुआ, और इसी दौरान त्रुटियों या जोड़-तोड़ की पूरी सम्भावना रही होगी। 

कुछ लोगों के ख्याल से सीता त्याग प्रभु राम की ही एक "लीला" थी और इससे श्री राम की कोई शिकायत नहीं होती। ऐसा भी माना जा सकता है। 

खैर, मैंने जो पढ़ा और अपने विचार से सोचा, उसे तर्क के आधार पर तौल कर अपनी धारणा बनाई है कि सीता परित्याग की घटना तार्किक नहीं लगती। 

- राहुल तिवारी 

Earlier Posts in this Series: 

Did Seeta’s Exile really Happen?

Shri Ram Never Banished Ma Sita to Forest 

Hindu Festivals: Gudi Padwa and Its Rituals

Gudi Padwa celebrates new beginnings for many communities in India. The Indian New Year, unlike its Western counterpart, also commemorates the start of something positive while ushering in auspicious tidings. Gudi Padwa is also celebrated in other parts of India in the form of Telugu New Year (traditionally known as Ugadi), Kannada New Year (Yugadi), Sindhi New Year (Cheti Chand), and Kashmiri New Year (Navreh).

Some of the rituals if carefully followed will not only help in bringing positive energies but will also help in boosting the immune system.

On this day, houses are adorned with the auspicious Swastika, a powerful symbols in Hinduism, with turmeric and vermillion.

Women decorate the entrance doors with rangolis of different patterns and colours. Most rangoli symbols are meant to protect homes from negative energies.

The Gudi Flag is placed on the right side of the main entrance to keep negativity away and bring luck and prosperity.

Usually family members get together to clean the house and prepare for the spring season. Removal of clutter generates positive energies which in turn makes the mind positive and charged. Cleaning the house and premises is also important so that germs and microbes don’t get accumulated and cause illnesses.

A customary oil-bath is a must on this day. Wearing new clothes, especially traditional kurta-pajamas and sarees also form an integral part of the custom. Oil baths are generally medicated oils, which help in boosting the immunity of the body while new clothes signify cleanliness and good hygiene.

A significant ritual is to consume neem leaves, a custom that marks the beginning of the festival. The leaves can be eaten raw or can be prepared as a chutney by grinding it and then mixing jaggery and other seeds with it.

According to Ayurveda, neem is the best way to purify impurities in the blood. It triggers physical stamina to great heights. Neem also helps in boosting the immune system.

Other dishes that are prepared on this day are shrikhand -- a sweet that is consumed with poori; puran poli, chana, and soonth panak (an ingredient helpful in keeping the respiratory tract clear)

Similarly, sweets and different dishes are cooked from seasonal food materials to improve metabolism of the body, whereas spiritual offerings and rituals bring sanctity to the soul.

Gudi Padwa is best celebrated with friends and family.

Article by Dr Raviraj Ahirrao | Source: Rediff

Personal: Donation for Temple

At our housing society in Pune, a temple of Dutt Bhagwan is being constructed. There was an old but small temple in which place a bigger temple is being constructed. I have contributed Rs 5000+ as donation for the temple + idol. And I feel happy about it. 

- Rahul Tiwary

Hinduism: Origin of Yoga And Lord Shiva

Here is an interesting article on the origin of Yoga and Lord Shiva. There is something in Lord Shiva which makes Him relatable and relevant in all aspects even in today's time and beyond. Amazing read:

Origin of Yoga And Lord Shiva in Hinduism

By Abhilash Rajendran  Wednesday, June 05, 2019

Yoga is believed to have been first taught by Hindu God Shiva and it was compiled by Sage Patanjali. In Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Origin of yoga begins with Lord Shiva’s unhappiness over the world created by Brahma.

Legend has it that Shiva was unhappy with the pain and suffering in the world due to Maya. Shiva complained to Brahma about this. But Brahmadev was proud of his creation and sprouted four heads to view it from all sides. He was so proud that a fifth head popped out to watch His creation.

This enraged Shiva who took the terrible form of Bhairava and chopped off the fifth head of Brahma.

Brahma complained that he did not create unhappiness or misery. It is mind which is the result of all misery.

Shiva retorted that it was Brahma who created mind.

Brahma then answered that the mind can be controlled and enlightened. The mind which is the cause of unhappiness, if controlled is the path to bliss.

Shiva soon realized that Maya had overpowered him. He felt remorse for his anger and for the sin committed.

Shiva then went to Avimukta in Kashi and meditated on ways to control the mind.

Finally he came with the secret of Yoga.

All living beings who were frustrated with the materialistic world and sought to attain moksha crowded near Shiva.

Shiva as Dakshinamurti then unraveled the great cosmic truth.

Shiva first explained the main aim of yoga and then taught the physical postures.

Shiva is believed to have showed 8, 40, 000 postures – each representing a bird or animal.

Sage Patanjali compiled the teachings and saved it for the future generation. Today a miniscule part of the original teaching is available.

https://www.hindu-blog.com/2019/06/origin-of-yoga-and-shiva-hinduism.html?fbclid=IwAR30UwqTyNBu6YGfNONjcR8IVtKmFvFUbu0VIGhu3aMMKalMA9pWf6LQ1ok

#Hinduism: Supreme Court's Verdict on Sabarimala Temple Case

Recently, Supreme Court has given a verdict in Sabarimala Temple Case asking temple management to allow entry of all women into it which was being prohibited due to an old custom. As per the custom, the temple did not allow menstruating women an entry into the temple. The deity of the temple is Lord Ayyapan - he is the son of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati. Lord Ayyapan is a celibate warrior god. 

Out of the judges who gave this verdict, one was a female judge and she was the lone dissenting voice. She said that court should not interfere in matters of religious faiths unless absolutely necessary.  

“In a secular polity issues that are matters of deep religious faith must not be interfered with by courts,” Justice Mrs. Indu Malhotra said. “The right to practice is a fundamental right. religious practices are protected.” She also underlined that courts normally do not interfere with religious practices. “Equality in matters of religion must be viewed in the context of the worshippers of the same faith. It is not for the court to determine which practices of faith are to be struck down except when they are evil, for example sati,” Justice Malhotra said. She said that the issue of what constitutes is an essential practice is for religious committees to decide. Reference: HT

Many people thought that this decision to overturn temple's rule was an attack on Hinduism. They also pointed out that only Hinduism was subjected to such scrutiny and often forced by law while other religions most of the time were left to decide on their own practices. 

I believe Hinduism has tolerated and survived a lot of atrocities in the past like being taxed by Mughals to being massacred in cold blood by Afghan terrorists for not converting to Islam to being forced to keep caste surnames by the British to being denied equal facilities by democratic govts. The recent changes in law are just small pebbles and would also be tolerated well. For court's decision - I can say that something legally right does not mean morally right or practically right. 

There are several 'Indias' living inside India. It is foolish to lawfully enforce India as lived by people who spend 2 hours on TV and 3 hours on Smartphones every day; over India where people do manual work for 10 hours a day and do not get to watch viral videos before sleeping every night.

I think we need to make it mandatory for all judges to go and volunteer via some social organization in rural India (minimum 4 states with different languages for Supreme Court judges) for minimum 2 years; before they get to sit on a chair from where they would make or change rules for fellow Indians; claiming to "know" what India means.

For this case, I believe this custom should have been respected for the sake of an exception. Women in certain age group not getting access rights into a particular temple does not violate their fundamental rights. Since they are not losing anything by not getting entry into that particular temple. They can certainly enter the temple after reaching a certain age. And till then they can go to other temples. It is not necessary for them to visit only this particular temple. 

Personally I support women's rights and also their right to worship and enter temple. But if in any particular ancient temple a custom has been running for centuries, we can allow those to run as exceptions just for the sake of tradition. If we start breaking customs and traditions even if they are harmless; it will become a trend and we shall forget a lot of our ancient traditions which in a way keep us grounded and humble. 

It is also important to understand why such customs came into being. Women face problems during the menstruation period and are not comfortable going long distances. In the past when there were no proper means of transportation and people had to walk long distances; it was particularly more uncomfortable for them. Therefore, in order to protect them from inconvenience and to allow them to rest safely inside their homes, women were asked not to visit temples when they were menstruating. This custom was not made to degrade women in any way.

Some similar customs were also made to protect certain sections of society. For example, you would notice that Hindus consider some days of the week as not the right days on which they can get a hair-cut. This was made to ensure a weekly day off for the barbers! Since barbers were poor, rich people could call them for service on all days of the week and they would have to comply. Hence such customs were made to allow them some rest. Also, it is considered improper to get a haircut after sunset. This would allow barbers some rest and safety (since nights were not that safe in old times due to wild animals and bandits etc). Similar customs are made to protect washer men and a lot of other sections. I won't be surprised if it were the barbers and washer-men who themselves started this custom. Similarly, I won't be surprised if it were the women themselves who made such customs where they were not allowed to do certain tasks during their menstruating days in order to ensure proper care and rest. 

Btw, the lady judge Indu Malhotra should be remembered in the history of feminism as an example of real empowerment. It would have taken a lot of courage for her to speak her mind instead of following the populist line.

- Rahul Tiwary

#Hinduism: Daughter lighting funeral pyre of Atal Bihari Vajpayee

After demise of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, one of India's best and most respected Prime Ministers on 16^th of August, his foster daughter Namita Kaul Bhattacharya lit the funeral pyre ^[1]. That created some buzz in the media as media is always eager to cover as many aspects of the ‘news of the hour’ as possible. Media reported about the fact that a daughter lighting funeral pyre is not common among Hindus; which is correct. But it is important to note that the reason behind the custom is not any bias against women but a different one altogether.

First, Hinduism as a religion does not ban women from attending cremation or a female from lighting funeral pyres. A lot of women have done so across the times. This practice of not allowing women at the cremation site is more of a cultural practice or a social custom. The reasons can be explained in many ways.

The major reason is that daughters are perceived to be emotional and too attached to their parents and hence may not be able to carry the whole process as strongly as a son would be able to do. This should not be seen as a sign of ‘weakness’ as modern feminist could judge it as. Any custom that society makes considers the general welfare of people. In several cases a daughter may be strong enough or stronger than the son but those would be exceptional cases.

Anu Lall writes in her article ^[2] titled "Why Hindu Women don’t light funeral pyres":

"As the fire leapt up, the pandit handed over a bamboo stick for the Kapaal Kriya — breaking the skull to release the soul from the body. Several times in the process, buckets of water were poured on me, or I was asked to pour on myself. Shivering to the spine, in the cold November rain, breaking my dad’s skull, my senses were numb, maybe heart stopped beating. I must be breathing. Must have, coz I didn’t die. We came back, drenched to the bone, my soul and mind paralysed."

This just gives an account of kind of experience the doer of the rituals have to go through.

You can go through the whole process or rituals in this article on Hindu Jagriti website  ^[3].

It is an arduous task.

Even if daughters or females were allowed to do the rituals, all of them may not like to do it. Hence sons or male members of the family would take care of the process. It is very important to note that this custom is to "safeguard" the women from the trouble.

Many a time when the deceased does not have a male family member, one of the daughters or a female family member does the process. No Hindu organization issues a "fatwa" against them or any other sort of protest.

To conclude, this custom of not allowing females from doing the cremation rites is social in nature, not religious. And this custom was made to safeguard the females from the inconvenience and ordeal due to a cumbersome process, not as a form of any gender discrimination.

:: Rahul Tiwary 

References:

1.     https://www.news18.com/news/india/atal-bihari-vajpayee-funeral-live-updates-daughter-lights-pyre-of-former-pm-nation-bids-teary-adieu-1847293.html

2.      https://medium.com/@anulall/why-indian-women-dont-light-funeral-pyres-48580e52dd0d

3.      https://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/rituals-to-be-performed-prior-to-and-during-cremation-of-a-dead-body

Disclaimer: Views are personal.

#Trends: Rudra Hanuman Vehicle Stickers

More than a year back while visiting Bengaluru, I noticed a unique sticker on almost every third vehicle. The sticker of Lord Hanuman, apparently in an angry facial expression. It was attention catching. The design was so perfect for vehicles. I wondered where it came from. 

In due course, the same vehicle sticker has reached nooks and corners of India. It can be seen in Delhi-NCR area as well, on cars, bikes and scooters alike. The other day while talking to a colleague, I mentioned that the sticker is slightly scary. But the colleague said, "No, it is good!" Apparently everyone likes it. 

The other day there was a campaign on Twitter with hash tag #BajrangiTwitter. When I checked what had happened, I found this sticker at the center of the trend. Then I got to know about who designed it. 

The 'Rudra Hanuman' sticker was designed by Karan Acharya, a designer and graphic artist working in Mangalore, Karnataka. He hails from Kasargod in Kerala. He had designed the sticker in 2015 at the event of Ganesh Chaturthi when his friends asked him to design something new. 

Karan mentions that he wanted to design something for which he can be remembered. I am sure, this Hanuman Sticker is definitely one of those. 

• Checkout some of his art on pinterest here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/575194183642131318/
• Follow him on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/karanacharya7#

You can find these interesting articles about Karan and his Hanuman art here: 

• The mystery behind why Bengaluru is covered in stickers of ‘angry Hanuman’
• Meet the man who designed this wonderful Hanuman sticker

Best wishes to Karan. More power to his tribe.

- Rahul 

#Religion: Lingayats Becoming Separate Religion in Karnataka

Just before upcoming assembly elections, Karnataka State Govt has declared Lingayat community a separate religion, i.e. separate from Hinduism. This is done so that the community can enjoy the "benefits" of being a "minority" religion. As Lingayats will enjoy better privileges when they become religious minorities, they will definitely like to thank the political party which granted them this "favor" (Congress) and what is better way to thank a party than to "vote for them". So, it all comes down to "votes".

Reports tell that even some from the Lingayat community wanted a separate minority religion status, so as to enjoy the benefits which come with such a status.

The first thing that surprises me is - world over it is assumed that people want to be associated with a "majority" group. It gives them a psychological edge by association with a large, majoritarian and hence powerful group. People do not want to be in "minority" as there is an associated "weakness" associated with it. So, why should this peculiar looking case where a group or community would want to be called minority?

First, it is because the "place" matters. It might be true universally that being a minority is disadvantageous; e.g. in Islamic countries or Christian majority countries; but in case of India which is dominated by Hindus who are known to be most religiously tolerant and passive towards other religions, the "rules of the game" must be different. This demand for becoming 'minority' establishes without doubt that there is so much religious freedom in India that minorities are not only safe, confident and expansive; but the balance is tilted so much in their favor that more and more communities want to become minorities! This is a proud testimony for Hinduism. If you are a Hindu, you should be proud of what you stand for. But at the same time, an internal check is required. India is a secular country where people from all religions should be able to enjoy religious freedom. But at the same time, no religion or group of religions should be given so much privilege that people from other religions are "lured" into that particular religion. This, unfortunately is happening for the "minority religions" as a whole. Laws need to be reviewed, government policies need to be reviewed and some undue advantages given to the minority (read non-Hindu) religions should be clamped down. There should not be any controversy around it; but this should be done to withhold the true spirits of our constitution. Our constitution was not supposed to be biased in favor of minorities; since such a policy would be unfair towards Hindus.

Secondly, Hinduism as an umbrella religion is an inclusive and flexible one which grants lots of freedom to individuals, groups, sects and castes. They can practice the religion in their own ways until it confirms to a very broad set of moral guidelines and still be called Hindus. There is no clear cut definition of Hindus and no single ritualistic process like Baptism for anyone to become a Hindu. In this manner, Hinduism is even sometimes called "not a religion". As I see it, this is the highest level any religion can achieve. When the boundaries are so subtle, rules are so not known, no one forces you to do or not to do something, and you still are a "Hindu". What a higher evolutionary level this represents! This is epitome and other world religions should learn from its example. But this special feature does not mean that our governments can take Hinduism for granted and declare each distinct sect or caste as a separate religion. That will be exploiting the religion and abusing the constitutional rights governments enjoy. In this regard, I would like our Central government to stop Karnataka state government's decision, no matter what means are needed. Any state government which has taken such a blatant decision cannot be qualified enough to remain in power. The state government should be sacked for taking this blatant decision which is expected to be an example for others who have something like this in their mind.

IT veteran T. V. Mohandas Pai has condemned Karnataka government's decision and said, "A very communal decision by the ‘Secular’ Congress govt. Big Shame; is this what Congress politics is all about? Breaking up the Hindu community because they are peaceful and quiet? This will consolidate Hindu votes against Congress."

In my view, this should not be left for the voters to decide. Law should prevent this. Karnataka state government must pay for what it has done blatantly against Hinduism.

Disclaimer: Views are personal.

Rise and Fall of Babas; Prevalence of Numerous Sects in Hinduism and the Way Ahead

After recent news and controversies around some of them, 'Babas' have become completely out of flavor. Before the most recent one from Haryana, we had cases with Baba Rampal and Asaram Bapu also, making it look like a "pattern". Our human brain is designed to understand "patterns" and it reflects in the way we are talking about 'Babas' these days. Social media is filled with abuses written by some very educated and bright minds against these Babas. It is not surprising because social media is a means of expression, not a tool of education. But still, what are the lessons we are learning from the infamous 'Babas'?

If we look at their backgrounds, one thing is clear. These Babas were first generation entrepreneurs who ran their spiritual empires like corporate houses. And they lacked tradition, 'sanskara' and were married men with kids (i.e. were no sanyasis) before deciding to go spiritual. Baba Rampal (Original name: Rampal Singh Jatin) had a diploma and worked as junior engineer. He quit his job and started his sect (Satlok Ashram). And what does his sect teach? Among other things it teaches that Saint Kabir is the Supreme Lord; asks disciples not to visit Hindu temples and not to worship Hinduism's trinity of Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva! He is married and has two children.

Asaram Bapu (Original name: Asumal Thaumal Harpalani) was born in a Sindhi family in Sindh, Pakistan and migrated to Ahmedabad after partition. Being a school drop-out, he managed his father's coal and wood business for sometime. He is also married with two kids. Although his teachings are not controversial since he preaches Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti Yoga.

It is also not only a male phenomenon. For example we had Radhe Ma (Original name: Sukhvinder Kaur) who is a school dropout, got married at early age and used to stitch clothes to supplement her husband's income. Before of course joining a religious sect and becoming self-styled god-woman.

Now, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan is married with several children. His Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) is a registered NGO and all Gurus of DSS have come from Sikh background. They have their own sect/religion and welcome people from all different religions. It is ironical that it is he who has triggered this "anti-Baba" feeling in the masses while he is not really a "Hindu Baba" per se.

And the worst part is: these Babas are not alone. The more you would know about different sects and their beliefs, the more you would get confused and 'uninterested' in religion. ISKCON for example is a very popular sect and we all visit its temples. But ISKCON sect does not consider Krishna as Lord Vishnu's avatar but it considers Lord Krishna as the Supreme God. Worshiping Lord Krishna is a different matter and we all do that - but not an avatar but Supreme Lord? Where does it leave our Lord Shiva? The sect considers Shiva as a manifestation of Lord Krishna! That changes everything!

If you visited the wonderful Akshardham temple; it belongs to Swaminarayan sect. Ever wondered who is Swaminarayan? He was born with orignal name of Ghanshyam Pande in Chhapaiya, Uttar Pradesh in 1781. At early age he joined Uddhav Sampraday which later became Swaminarayan Sampraday as Ghanshyam Pande became Swaminarayan. Followers of Swaminarayan sect believe that Swaminarayan is the complete incarnation of Lord Vishnu and more superior to other avatars.

And then there is Brahma Kumaris. Their name contains "Brahma" and then their preachers keep talking about "Shiva Baba" and it appears so nice to the Hindus. But go deeper and you would realize that the Brahma Kumaris is a full fledged "religion" in itself. They call their founder Lekhraj Kripalani as "Brahma Baba" and Shiv Baba is their Godfather (supreme being). Although most of their basic ideas are similar to Hinduism, there is lot of dogma about how world started, how it is going to end, and who will survive and how.

In the era of these numerous "modern" sects, older sects like Arya Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission etc appear to be "old fashioned". I wonder how many people from younger generation or in the cities are reaching out to them.

Although most interesting thing about Hinduism is that while its "diversity" would appear like its weakness (there are so many beliefs, so many deities, so many sects and hence Hindus are seldom united for any cause), it is actually a strength which has allowed it to "survive". It is common knowledge that a very large set of people are difficult to be kept in one piece and dividing them into smaller sets makes them easier to manage. I think such was the idea of having so many sects. But what if sects start preaching very different things; and try to make themselves break out into separate full fledged religions? It has happened with Sikhism in the past which had started as a sect within Hinduism. If it happens too often and starts giving unwanted results, then it has to be "curbed".

The solution is simple: "return to the roots". According to most central ideas of Hinduism, Supreme Being is called Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva when it creates, preserves and renews. If you see any sect trying to say one of these are higher than others, which essentially means that these three are different and one can be "higher" or "lower" than other; be warned against such upstarts. If you see any sect asking you to "worship" mere mortals like its sect leader, any guru or any imaginary being, be warned. Try to be as near to the ancient practices as possible. If Yagna is not possible, offer flowers and other items which symbolically mean the same (offerings). Try to visit temples of original deities like Shiva, Vishnu or Durga. Pick any one of the deities and keep your faith in one deity instead of making it a spiritual tourism - because the more you would wander, the less peace you would have. Try to read original scriptures but be warned against different versions written by different sect leaders with a political explanation of the meanings. Try to read Swami Vivekananda in case of any doubts, who has done a wonderful job in writing down his thoughts and conclusions on most of the things related to Hinduism. And if you are choosing a Guru, look for his family history and other things apart from competence and the advertising done around him.

Let us take the rise and fall of 'Babas' in a stride as an opportunity to do course correction. Let us also pardon them because they were mere mortals and prone to corruption. Let us watch ourselves instead to avoid any flaws and bad habits getting into us. Even those disgraced 'Babas' taught nice things to others; and hence teachings do not matter. What matters is: how much we get to practice the good that is shared with us.

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti.

- Rahul

Importance of Wearing Bindi

A 'bindi' or 'bindu' means drop or globule. In Indian/Hindu culture it is supposed to be a sacred symbol of the universe, depicted as a dot or the zero. Applied between the eyebrows, it is position of the sixth chakra, a place which is also the exit point of kundalini energy. Red bindu which women wear also symbolizes fire as per tantra. 

An author writes that while Muslim women in Pak/Bangladesh also wear bindi quite often it is comparatively rare in Indian Muslim women perhaps due to its religious significance. 

From health point of view, bindi is worn between the eyebrows where the pineal gland lies which is an important nerve center and applying sandalwood or ash keeps the nerves cool and conserves energy. But it helps in this aspect only if bindi is made of natural sources and not of plastic. 

The bindi also represents the third eye (of wisdom/enlightenment). The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda mentions the word vindu/bindu.

[Source: Books and online resources; Picture © Andre Susan]

#Society: How Many Children Hindus Should Have?

Every now and then media catches some Hindu leader suggesting Hindus to have more kids so as not to get outnumbered by other religions and then hell breaks loose. (E.g. News1; News2) Getting carried away by the mainstream media (mainly TV news), people like us also criticize such persons on social media expressing disgust and the underlying basic principle is - "it is our personal choice to have as many kids as we want and any other person or organization does not have any right to suggest me or persuade me about it". Isn't it so?

First, if you follow news, such suggestions are made by leaders from all religions. A few days after last time media had made Sakshi Maharaj famous, Pope himself had made a very similar statement. But media does not criticize other religions for the same charge because Indian media's main audience are Hindus and Hindus would naturally find criticism of their own religion more "appealing" than of others - which helps channels's TRP. If I write a facebook post criticizing Hindus, I will get 30 'likes' but if I write one criticizing other religions, I would perhaps get only 3 - because my friends are majorly Hindus. Secondly, data tells that Muslims population is indeed growing faster than Hindus' and hence if some Hindu leaders are educated enough to make sense out of the data and the trend analysis, we should not get angry with them for it.

Lastly, do we really get so upset with anyone suggesting us about how many kids to have? Are not our Govts doing the same for decades - by asking us to breed only "2"? Slogans like "Ham do hamare do" were thrust into our ears for years; and our own (tax-payers') money was spent to teach us the benefits of "small family" - If your father has 100 acres of land and you are 2 kids, you get 50 acres each; but if you are 10 kids, you get only 10 acres each - hence by appealing to our "greed", Govt was able to convince Hindus and other liberal religions to have small families. On the other hand, govt is officially busy increasing the population of minority religions like Parsis by officially using tax payers' money; and inflating the budget of so called "Minority Affair Ministries" while there have been no "Majority Affairs Ministry".

When govt said, "have 2 kids or less", we found it "fine"; but when a Hindu leader says, "have more than 2 kids", why do we find it revolting while logically both are suggesting us to have a "right number of kids" according to their own "perspectives"? If you think rationally and logically, both statements - "have 2 kids or less" and "have 4 kids" are of same "kind" and "characteristic"! But thanks to the media which cares only about TRP and has thrown its brain down the drain; our "perception" is molded so that we find Govt's slogan fine while religious leaders' statement as bad.

- Rahul

Two New Blogs on Hinduism

Happy to inform that I have launched two new blogs as below. Their titles tell the theme these are based on. These are still in nascent stage and I hope to keep posting with time.

Hinduism Thrives http://hinduism-thrives.blogspot.com/

Hindu Rights Register http://hindurightsregister.blogspot.com/

Swami Vivekananda on Buddhism and Hinduism

It is interesting to read what Swami Vivekananda said about Buddhism. It is also the opinion of many other learned intellectuals of all times. This is part of Swami Vivekananda’s world famous speck at the Parliament of Religions. This was delivered on 26^th of September, 1893 and I have taken this portion from The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda:

Buddhism, the Fulfillment of Hinduism

I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am. If China, or Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great Master, India worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just now heard that I am going to criticize Buddhism, but by that I wish you to understand only this. Far be it from me to criticize him whom I worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples. The relation be- tween Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day, is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference that we Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha, lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfill and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realize the importance of his teachings, As the Jew did not understand the fulfillment of the Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the fulfillment of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, Shakya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfillment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus.

The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts, the ceremonial and the spiritual; the spiritual portion is specially studied by the monks.

In that there is no caste. A man from the highest caste and a man from the lowest may become a monk in India and the two castes become equal. In the religion there is no caste; caste is simply a social institution, Shakya Muni himself was a monk, and it was his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out the truths how the hid- den Vedas and throw them broadcast all over the world. He was the first being in the world who brought missionarizing into practice - nay, he was the first to conceive the idea of proselytizing.

The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful sympathy for everybody, especially for the ignorant and the poor. Saint of his disciples were Brahmins. When Buddha was teaching, Sanskrit was no more the spoken language in India. It was then only in the books of the learned. Some of the Buddha's Brahmin disciples wanted to translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he distinctly told them, "I am for the poor, for the people: let me speak in the tongue of the people." And so to this day the great bulk of his teachings are in the vernacular of that day in India.

Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever may the position of metaphysics, so long as there is such a thing as death in the world, so long as there is such a thing as weakness in the human heart, so long as there is a cry going out of the heart of man in his very weakness, there shall be a faith in God.

On the philosophic side, the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them, and on the other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which everyone, man or woman, clings so fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural death in India. At the present day there is not one who calls himself a Buddhist in India, the land of its birth.

But at the same time, Brahminism lost something - that reforming zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity for everybody, that wonderful leaven which Buddhism had brought to the masses and which had rendered Indian society so great that a Greek historian who wrote about India of that time was led to say that no Hindu was known to tell untruth and no Hindu woman was known to be unchaste.

Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism without Hinduism. Then realize what the separation has shown to us, that the Buddhists cannot stand without the brain and philosophy of the Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the heart of the Buddhist. This separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins is the cause of the downfall of India. That is why India is populated by three hundred millions of beg- gars, and that is why India has been the slave of conquerors for the last thousand years. Let us then join the wonderful intellect of the Brahmin with the heart, the noble soul, the wonderful humanizing power of the Great Master.