Changing Nature of Relationships

One oft-repeated phrase of our time is, “Change is the only constant thing of this world.” And this is a very apt statement. I call it a phrase of “our time” because the world never moved as fast as it has been moving in the past decades. Almost everything has undergone fundamental changes; be it the way we live, the things we own, the things we looked forward to own, and even our value system. Our relationships have also changed. But my focus right now is not on the macro level changes happening at global scale. I am looking at the way things change for the constant person within his/her lifetime… This change is something which has remained constant over time, though the nature and intensity of changes always vary…

The kid is free from the burden of expectations on him. He can shout, cry, sleep, or laugh whenever/wherever he wants or feels like. It doesn’t remain the same as he grows up. At times even kids feel that their early-childhood was better than their then-childhood’s stage which is more mature and responsible. Along with time, they feel they are able to enjoy lesser things and in lesser ways and have to live up to the patterns of the society. As they grow up to a certain age, they get to know and feel things which had been invisible to them so far. They get to know that their friends are of two types – boys and girls – and hence they decide to make groups amongst the same gender. “Discipline” is a word which youngsters listen a lot, and at times to the frustrating limits. Their freedom is chained and their behaviors are monitored. Life becomes less fun and more mechanical. After some more years, during what we call adolescence or teenage, when they confuse themselves between being a kid and a grownup man/woman, they get revolting feelings. Their relationships to even their parents are not the same. There is more thinking, judging, and protest, than simply obeying. These years can be very turbulent, depending on the circumstances and environment shaping them. Boys and girls have now their distinct individual personalities, aspirations, value system, philosophies, likes & dislikes. Almost everything changes now, and there is also a kind of “clarity” which they experienced never before. By the time they survive the teen years, they almost become what they had never dreamt of becoming – “part of society” confirming to its standards…

It is interesting to think that all through the changes, is there something which remains constant? Spirituality will say that only our “soul” remains constant, while our body, our mind, and everything else changes. But talking on a different plane, I wonder again: is there anything which remains the same? It is obvious that everything material would have undergone changes – be it our house, city, gadgets, technology, our bodies, our hair, etc. Are the soft aspects of life the same? Even our likes and dislikes would have changed much. Some things may not change, like kids with sweet tooth may grow up but still love sweet stuff; may be cakes instead of candies. Now, do our relationships change? A son who has now a boss in office and a wife at home to please, does he remain as warm and sweet to his parents as before? A daughter who has got an altogether new family to adjust in and entertain, will she have a change in her priorities? Will a brother behave the same with his sister who is married now? Will a father interrupt his daughter like before even if she has a whole new world to look after? It seems life becomes more complex, more challenging and difficult – but at the same time people also become tougher, abler, and stronger. The point is not the way things go – for better or for worse. The point is that almost nothing remains the same… Is that a pity? Is that a blessing? I am sure more vote would go for the former, but that is not because of facts of life but because of the way we are designed…

I think we are all designed in a way that we like and seek stability and security. Things which seem predictable to us, things which we can understand and hence judge, look better to us than things which are unpredictable, opaque, dark and aloof, even if appearing more profitable. Hence I think that along with our growing up, we tend to have more insecurities and fears piling inside us… The more we are exposed to new and changed things, somewhere inside our system we should be seeking more stability and less changes, in some way or the other… These insecurities or fears may turn out into complexes of our mind, or may make us do or not do some things. Again the question is not if this is good or bad, because by and large we don’t have a choice! Yet, I think the more we are ‘aware of ourselves’, the ‘stronger’ we are from the inside, and hence better we shall be able to manage these changes… And in the end, managing the changes is same as managing ourselves…

- Rahul

School of Hinduism (Discussion-1 on Lesson-1)

This discussion followed after one quote which I posted within School of Hinduism (Lesson-1)

Original post:

Hindus are advised against reading the Mahabharata inside their homes for the fear that ideas in that book such as brothers fighting over property will pollute family values. They prefer reading the Ramayana because in it brothers never fight over inheritance. The principle underlying this custom is called "sympathetic or imitative magic". According to this events in a household are influenced by the ideas expressed in sacred symbols, rituals and narratives. That is why during marriage and childbirth symbols associated with fruition and fertility and opulence are placed in all corners of the house.

# Friend1:

IMHO it is just superstition born from ignorance. Mahabharata teaches us some very important things, one of them being not to fight over inheritance. But most importantly, it shows how elders can fail : fathers, teachers, etc. It shows theoretical knowledge is useless : like drona, bhishma, etc. I personally feel that it is very relevant for today, given that it was written on the eve of kalyug.

Just have a strong attachment to it :)

# Me:

It shows even God has to take up means which were considered adharma, in order to win and establish dharma. drona was killed by yudhisthira's white lie, karna by trick against kshatriya's dharma, duryodhana killed by hitting below belt, not to mention insult to draupadi while her husbands lost her in gamble. Mahabharata was a dark time, no one, not even Krishna could remain to path of true dharma. If it teaches us to abandon fair play and kill bad people after becoming bad ourselves, it is debatable

In a symbolic tale, all pandavas except yudhisthir die before reaching swarga because they had flaws. yudhsthr himself had to spend a day in nark. krishna dies because of gandhari, curse who lost al her sons. not one character in mahabharata is flawless. this is why it has more negatives than positives for the common man. but in ramayana many are flawless, its lessons serve as our ideal.

more than anything else, ramayana tells what ideal brother, wife, husband, father, friend and bhakt could be. it is not the same in mahabharata. because of this ramayana is our ideal and worthy of reading by whole family... btw what do yoy think are lessons from mahabharata for family values?

also, if you can plz explain why you think bhisma's knowledge was theoritical? imo if there is one character who remained on the path of dharma from the beginning till end, it was bhishna. because of his fear kauravas didnt play as evil as they were... but first, lessons from mahabharata for family values...

# Friend1:

i have no dispute with what you say. Its like this. To bat well, I must know the right technique. But a good teacher must also teach the results and consequences of the bad technique. Mastery and perfection is achieved with equal knowledge of both good and bad. To know only the good is incomplete knowledge.

The lessons from mahabharata are very deep. For example, it is common to see in family disputes one of sons is uncomprimising. Parents keep saying "For us all are equal". Mahabharata illustrates the consequences of such action on part of the elders : its the end of the vansh or ancestral tradition. We see this all around. Mahabharata has a lot of bitter lessons, which I agree are not for everybody.

After all, Lord Krishna did appeal to Dhritrashtra, who was the king, and invested with all authority to stop the war. Thus he too was responsible. The relevance to today is self evident.

As for flaws, Mahabharata is guidance for mankind in the Kali Yuga. Not to say Ramayana should not emulated. One must have knowledge of all.

#Me:

Your point is good... ramayana and mahabhrata are from different times which have different values... even definitions of dharma are diff in the times. but when we want an ideal, it should be flawless, having perfection... people may call it unreal but ideal has to be that much higher... like we try for 100 but get 90 and we are still better than f we tried fotr 70 and ahieved 69... i agree that there are many lessons from mahabharata but as an ideal to aspire for, Ram Rajya is our ideal...

#Friend1:

No doubt. Ram Rajya is the ideal. But even in Ram Rajya, we shall still teach our kids about demons. To keep them away from it, will only make them fall into it. Free will is essential.

#Me:

right... just for reflection, in Ramayana i think the barbarians were termed rakshasas.... so easy to identify and eliminate... but in mahabharata times it was so difficult to discriminate between manava and rakshasa... like kansa was a rakshasa or human? duryodhana could very well be a rakshasa if present in ramayana times... even pandavas who gambled and put wife on bet, even before that they shared one wife, all were against dharma during ramayana times...

But we have very good examples of great family values from mahabharata... pandavas were ideal sons... draupadi was almost an ideal wife... pandavas were ideal sons towards mother... krishna balram ideal brothers... krishna arjuna ideal friends... bhishma ideal son for his father... bhishma's great vow an ideal... arjuna rejecting menaka for good reason... krishna's ideal role as a diplomat... on the other side there are so many nonideal characters showing us what not to be...

#Friend2:

Sorry to participate and disagree with everything, most flawed character in Ramayana was Ram himself, the one who outed his own wife, based on some stupid low life. If this is the family value ram raja gives no wonder, in India women empowerment needs to be fought for.

#Me:

Friend I have done some research and read much on this. The portion where Ram deserts Sita comes in uttar ramayana which is not authentic. Most authentic tale of Ram's life is as written by Valmiki who lived himself during Ram's time. And his Ramayana doesnt mention anything like this. I have read C. Rajgopalachari's Ramayana too which he had written after much research himself. He says that this part of Sita's exile seems to have come afterwards in folk tales due to women's fears and C. Rajgopalachari clearly says that Sita's exile is not there in oldest scriptures and has been added afterwards... So learned that we are we should not believe in any such stories... Also in the stories and fictions which mention this episode, they said Raja Ram left Queen Sita because Praja didnt want her. He never gave his wife away, so he never remarried and when in yagya he was needed to sit with his wife, he sat with Sita's golden idol... when Sita left this world he too enteres the river...

So for all practical purposes Sita's exile is an unauthentic story which entered our folklore and should not be taken  seriously to make our opinion... Ram has always been the perfect husband... and i think we should correct the mistaken opinion of as many people as possible...

# Friend1:

Lord Ram was not only a husband : he was also a king, a father, etc. The part in uttar ramayana is the portrait of an ideal king. The first part is ideal student, then ideal son, then ideal husband, then ideal warrior, finally ideal king, and last ideal father. Further, he did not take another wife during the time, and pined for Sita only, and loved only her. The message is that an ideal ruler should be above reproach, and must listen to what his people want. If Sita lived in an ashrama, Lord Rama too lived in great sorrow during this time. Just bcoz he was living in a palace can be no comfort. He was not exactly gambling the nights away if thats what you think.

December 18, 2011 at 12:01am · UnlikeLike · 2

The idea is that of the bond that the two shared. Both grieved for the loss of their beloved. Neither was attached to wealth and power. It is an ideal that is naturally hard for us to grasp in this Kalyuga.

#Me:

You are very right... thanks a lot for putting it so well... Even in the later versions and additions where Ram is shown to leave Sita,i is reprentation of an ideal King... An ideal king has to make personal sacrifices if the people so want... queens were examples to whole public and when people started susecting her on her purity, to make good example, Ram is shown as leaving Sita... but he is never shown to be himself suspecting her or having mistrust... This dilemma of choosing between

December 18, 2011 at 12:11am · LikeUnlike · 1

This portion even though unauthentic shows the dilemma or conflict between different duties or dharmas...

Some more good examples from mahabharata... Karna is ideal daani, krishna ideal brother to draupadi, vidur ideal counsell, ghatotkach ideal son to bhim, abhimanyu great kshatriya, gandhari ideal wife... karna ideal friend to duryodhana... and so on... if we think we can find so many inspirations... but in totality Ram rajya is ideal for family values and culture...

#Friend3:

Concept of ramarajya doesn't fits well in today's society. Mahabharata is more appropriate. Even in Ramayan not everyone was ideal, kaikayi for instance.

he only perfectly ideal character in Mahabharat was karna. Others were ideal too but their ideals came out of teaching, belonging and convenience. Karna was the only character who had choice to change his alliance but he did not do so out of his friendship to his friend. He even donated his arms knowing fully well that this is deception. If it were Arjuna, I am sure Krishna might have helped him to dodge the situation.

Bhishma, Drona, Gandhari, Dhritrashtra all suffered due to their lack of conscience. I somewhere read about theortrical knowledge among comments. Thats explanable. Doesn't matters who is right or wrong, no one has got authority or right to insult a woman neither in public nor in private. What happened with Draupadi, was not the fault of her husband or duryodhan. All the elders who were present there were even more responsible for that. It was wrong on Drona's part, if he cannot instill good manners in his pupils he shoud have stopped them with all his authority.

It was wrong on Bhisma's part, he was the eldest and most experienced member of the family and he should have used his powers. Even after that they had a choice, both Bhishma and Drona should have abstained themselves from the war. Being a teacher (Drona)and being eldest of the family(Bhishma) they were supposed to be neutrals.

#Me:

For Karna, as i said he was ideal daani and ideal friend to duryodhana... or but his friendship was more loyalty than friendship. a good friend is a good adviser... but alas he always advised duryodhana to start war and was part of adventures to kill pandavas by trick. so he is never an ideal friend anyone can aspire for.. on the other hand he is ideal when it comes to loyalty. next he remains hateful and full of vengeance all through.. he was not the only lost royal in the family...

Vidura was exactly his case a generation back...not owned up legally... but he remained peaceful and balanced... karna was never balanced, though full of kshatriya valore but unthoughtful and quick and always ready for war... popular modern literature and fiction tries to make him a hero as people love underdogs but we need to read original classics to understand characters properly and fully...

For draupadi's incident and bhishma... as we know dhritirashtra returned all the kingdom kauravas won in gamble just after that event... it happened due to bhishma's pressure.. without bhishma's presence as keeper of dharma duryodhana wud have killed pandavas long time back. he and elders did all they cud, but there are limits. on draupdi if her husbands were wise enough to put her for gamble it was no business of others to interfere.. in that time also some women were keeps and if pandavas wanted

If pandavas were ok with letting their wife be slave of duryodhana, who were others to object? of course Krishna came to object and he saved draupadi... in the epic of mahabharata it was krishna who played role of keeper of dharma, if others cud do it he never had to take Avatar!

Bhishma and Drona could not be neutral to the war until they followed dharma... they were bound to protect the throne and pandvas were attacking it... dhritirashtra was the king and duryodhana was yuvaraj, they had to side with the throne... if they sided with pandavas or didnt support kauravas they wud not be kshatriyas and lose their honor...but they had to side with evil. in mahabharata it is shown as conflict between dharmas and ordinary morality vs higher morality...

You are right that kaikai was not ideal. people know the ideal characters in ramayana and they are flawless... like Ram, Sita, Bharat, Lakshman, Hanuman, Angad,... The character of Kaikai is there in Ramayana to test the character of Ram... if there was no kaikai or manthara Ram wuld not have achieved that much height and fulfilled purpose of his avatar... Vishnu had taken birth as Ram to eliminate rakshasas including ravana and all that happened was part of maya.in m.b. no 1 is flawless

#Friend1:

On the question of bhishma and drona, i would go with shweta. they were the elders, and if they had taken a stand the war would never have happened. Even then were it to happen, at least the elders would have done their duty. But in Mahabharata, none of the elders follow their duty

If we accept the dictum of "no action is also action", the elders were the most responsible for the war.

The actions of elders were shameful regarding draupadi. We must remember that any private deal if illegal or immoral can be nullified by the state. That is the duty of the king. Yet such a shameful act happened in the royal court.

Actually, these books are meant to illustrate certain things to us. The fact that Ved Vyas put Drona and Bhishma in the losing faction, opposing the Lord, should leave no doubts as to the intended meaning

#Me:

Duryodhana had gone to Draupadi's swayamvar and Drupadi had insulted him calling him Andhe ka Beta. So Duryodhan wanted to take revenge on her and hence the insult. Next if we start judging, elders of Gangeya who became Bhishma should have fought and protested against him for his "illegal and immoral" act of kidnapping 3 daughters of Kashiraj? I fear we should not judge that time and kings' ways from the ethics of our times. In a way, each character of MB paid price for his or her karma.

That court of Hastinapur where Draupadi was insulted represented all that was wrong with that time. When the bad guys are at their evil best, good guys lose their mind, protectors and elders confuse dharma and become mere spectators, when king is blind, and humanity in draupadi's form is insulted, Bhagwan has to come on earth to cleanse all the rot... only He can do it and he show us what is dharma and what is evil...

Christianity in Colonial India

While reading “Recess: The Penguin Book of Schooldays” (Penguin Books; Edited by Palash Krishna Mehortra; ISBN 978-0-14-310011-9), I came across some curious portions which touch internal conflicts within Indian society during growing years of Christianity:

1. … Calcutta in 1834 when I came to that city from my native village. There were then four principle schools – the Hindu College; the General Assembly’s Institution, always called Duff’s School; the School Society’s School, called Hare’s School; and the Oriental Seminary, usually called Gour Mohana Addhya’s School. The question with my father was – into which of these schools should I be put? … There remained then the General Assembly’s Institution, where admission was given generously…

But, then, there was one serious drawback. Dr. Duff (he was then simply Mr. Duff) was a most zealous Missionary. He made no secret of it, but publicly avowed, that his chief object in setting up the Institution was to initiate Hindu youth into the principles of the Christian religion. He had already appeared as a Public Lecturer on Christianity, and his Lectures had taken Calcutta by storm. Those Lectures had not only created a great sensation in the Hindu community, but had brought to the Christian faith some of the brightest and most intelligent youth of the city. Only a year and half before, Dr. Duff had baptized Krishna Mohana Banerjea (now the Reverend K. M. Banerjea); and the conversion of Krishna Banda – as he was then universally called – had produced a tremendous impression on the Hindu community.

“Is it right – is it expedient,” argued some of my father’s friends, “to imperil the religion of your son by putting him for education into the hands of so zealous a Missionary, of a man whose avowed object is to eat the religion of young Hindus, of a man who has already succeeded in eating the religion of several young men?”…

(From Lal Behari Dey, Bengal Peasant Life, Folk Tales of Bengal, Recollections of My School-days (1876), edited by Mahadevprasad Saha, Calcutta: Editions Indian, 1969)

---

2. The Mission School and the Girls’ School were housed in a large bungalow, and were separated by a wall. Only Christians studied in the Girls’ School. The fear of losing caste was so great among the Hindus that they would not send their daughters to school.

(From Fakir Mohan Senapati, Story of My Life (1918, published in 1927), translated from the Oriya by Jatindra K. Nayak and Prodeepta Das, Bhubneshwar: Sateertha Publications, 1997.)

---

3. “What an annoying fellow that old teacher is, to be sure. If it were not for the English I wouldn’t tolerate him a bit. I had a good mind to give it to him this day. What does he mean by always dinning into our ears the Bible, as if we had no Shastras of our own? I told him today, when he took me aside and spoke to me in serious tones about my spiritual condition, to learn a little more of our Shastras. What can compare with our grand old Vedic religion and our scriptures?”

“That is right T…! Make the old fellow a convert to our religion,” says an old dame jocularly. “We will give him some marks on his forehead and besmear him with ashes. He will be a perfect Brahmin.”

“Ha! ha! ha!” laugh all the females, while the males put their heads down and deign to smile inwardly and wear a pleased expression.

“The polluted old one, how dare he speak of the religion of the pariahs to you, my dear son! I greatly fear him,” says the mother.

“No need of fear, mother! He will be a convert first before I become one. I am quite a match for him and can hold my own. I tolerate him and the school only for the English. Do you mean to say I like him?”

The father chuckles in silence. The meal ends and the son majestically stalks out with a heap of books under his arm. The father says to the women with a wink in the direction of the young man, meant to express a sort of a self-satisfied pride. “Leave him to himself. He knows how to manage the old fanatic. Be sure he will come out scatheless. He is no ordinary lad.”

(From Krupabai Satthianadhan, ‘The Story of a Conversion’, in The Satthianandhan Family Album, Edited with an Introduction by Eunice de Souza, New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi, 2005.)

---

4. Ours was a Lutheran Mission School – mostly for boarders who were Christian converts. The teachers were all converts, and, towards the few non-Christian students like me, they displayed a lot of hatred. Most of the Christian students also detested us. The scripture classes were mostly devoted to attacking and lampooning the Hindu gods, and violent abuses were heaped on idol worshippers as a prelude to glorify Jesus. Among the non-Christians in our class I was the only Brahmin boy, and received special attention; the whole class would turn in my direction when then teacher said that Brahmins claiming to be vegetarians ate fish and meat in secret, in a sneaky way, and were responsible for the soaring price of those commodities.

(From My Days, R. K. Narayan)

---

Hindu Temples I have visited (Part-III)

Akshardham Temple, Gandhinagar.
.

Akshardham Temple, New Delhi
.

Belur Math, Kolkata

Birla Mandir, Kolkata

Dakshineshwar Kali Mandir, Kolkata

Somnath Mandir, Somnath, Gujarat

Sri Venkateswara Temple, Tirupati

Also:

Hindu Temples I have visited (Part-II)

Hindu Temples I have visited (Part-I)