After Death - What?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

TO ALL,
Recently I came across a website"www.exotic india.com" where a topic almost similar to this thread has been discussed with quotes from vedic scriptures.The topic is discussed in the form of 'RESOLUTION' and 'OBJECTIONS'.Interested members may go through this website which also contains discussions on various topics of interest relevant to 'Hinduism'

Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

The website is not working. Can you upload the discussions?

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Sangom,
I am able to open the website"www.exoticindia.com"
Everymonth one article is published.In October,2010,the article"From individual Soul to
the Supreme- A Study in identity" was published.
After opening the website,you may click"Newsletters Archives" and all the titles of articles monthwise is indicated.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri.Sangom,
I am able to open the website"www.exoticindia.com"
Everymonth one article is published.In October,2010,the article"From individual Soul to
the Supreme- A Study in identity" was published.
After opening the website,you may click"Newsletters Archives" and all the titles of articles monthwise is indicated.

I had previously also tried to open this website for purchasing some rare books which appears in google search. Always I get the following notice:

THIS SITE IS
CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE

PLEASE VISIT US AGAIN LATER

The site is currently not available because of maintenance.
Kindly provide your email so that we may inform you when our website has been restored.
Email

THIS SITE IS
CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE
PLEASE VISIT US AGAIN LATER

The site is currently not available because of maintenance.
Kindly provide your email so that we may inform you when our website has been restored.

Email
May be you are now in US. I am told that some sites allow only those in US, Canada etc.

 

[CLN]

Mr. Snagom,

Perhaps you can try the following link: "http://www.exoticindia.com/newsletter.php3".. It opens fine. If there is still any problem it could be that your firewall is preventing it from opening. Maybe you can alter Security setting by going to 'Tools > Internet Options' in Internet Browser or the equivalent if you are using any other browser.

 

[CLN]

Sorry, Mr. Sangom! Silly of me to have mis-spelt your name. Very sorry again. By the way I am in Chennai and the link I have opened works fine for me. So you may try and see.

 

[sangom]

Sorry, Mr. Sangom! Silly of me to have mis-spelt your name. Very sorry again. By the way I am in Chennai and the link I have opened works fine for me. So you may try and see.

No, I think if it is firewall block I will not be getting such a detailed message. Any way I will try all possible tricks and them let you know. Thank you for your help.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Dear Shri.Sangom,
You may get into this website through Face Book also.After becoming a member you can get access to Exotic India.But all articles you may not get at one place.
I saw another article published in January,2007"Dying after Death: The Buddah's final liberation".
When I searched for this website in google,I found one advertisement that this website is for sale.
The website contains wealth of information.
ps:- Sorry.I am not in a position to cut and paste.Perhaps Mr.CLN
can do the needful. I find that Mr.CLN is also very knowledgeable.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri.Sangom,
You may get into this website through Face Book also.After becoming a member you can get access to Exotic India.But all articles you may not get at one place.
I saw another article published in January,2007"Dying after Death: The Buddah's final liberation".
When I searched for this website in google,I found one advertisement that this website is for sale.
The website contains wealth of information.
ps:- Sorry.I am not in a position to cut and paste.Perhaps Mr.CLN
can do the needful. I find that Mr.CLN is also very knowledgeable.

Dear Shri Krishnamurthy,

Two of my sons - in the software line have advised me against joining facebook, orkut, twitter, etc., because they say it opens our computer to attacks. The third son, however, is a facebook enthusiast; when I told him about his brothers' advice to me he said they are right, but I know how to prevent such attacks, you may not be able to and that is perhaps why they advised you so.

Hence I am wary of of signing into facebook, etc. Anyway I found another route via google's cache. Thank you.

 

[CLN]

When I started this thread about a week ago I started feeling puzzled and even a little awkward in the beginning because, though people seemed to be reading it but no replies were being posted for two days. In fact, I made even a mention of it in another thread while replying to Mr. Sangom, which resulted in several posts following thick and fast afterwards.

The discussion has touched an important aspect - the nexus between 'act' (which can be also termed karma) and 'intention'. While every 'act' is generally traced to some 'intention', does the reverse always happen? i.e., does always an 'intention' result in an 'act' - at least in an act, which can be traced back only to the original 'intention'? How accurate can be the inference of the true 'intention' of an 'act'?

I am reminded of a parable I read several years ago. I am not able to recall the source but the parable is well-etched in my memory. Perhaps, some of you also might have come across the parable.

The parable goes as follows: An old Buddhish monk was traversing a jungle with his young disciple (also a monk) following him reverentially a few feet behind him. Eventually, they reached a wild stream. They had to cross it to continue their journey. The stream, though not very deep, was a having a swift current. Just when they were going to step into the stream they heard a desperate voice, "Stop! Stop!!" They saw a young and singularly beautiful woman, running towards them. Out of breath due to her running, she just managed to plead with them in a halting tone, "Oh, holy men, please, I have to cross the stream urgently, but I am afraid that the strong current will drag me away if I venture into it. Please help me to cross it." Before the older one could even open his mouth, the young monk glared at her and shouted, "Woman! What a blasphemy! Don't you see that we are monks? We don't touch women. In fact, we should not even speak to young and beautiful women. Go away!" So saying, he got into the stream in a hurry to cross it. The older one took a glance at the plight of the woman, just lifted her in his arms and carrying her he also started crossing it. The disciple was flabbergasted at this act of his master and crossed the stream muttering some thing to himself. On reaching the other bank of the stream, the old monk gently put the woman down. The woman fell at his feet and started thanking him profusely. But the old one did not even stop for a moment and had started walking away. The muttering disciple followed him for a few yards and then abruptly stopped. He started shouting at his master, "Enough! I won't be your disciple any more. I can't follow you. You are not a true monk. You violated the norms and carried that woman across the river" The old master just smiled at him and said, "My poor man! I put down that woman immediately after crossing the stream. But, WHY ARE YOU STILL CARRYING HER?"

The parable shows that the 'intention' behind an 'act' need not necessarily always be inferred correctly. The 'intention' in the old monk's 'act' was interpreted wrongly by his disciple. On the other hand, one can have a wrong 'intention' even if no 'act' apparently results from it. The disciple saw only her ''beauty', whereas the master saw only her 'distress'.

So, when we say 'karma' and 'karmapalan' what do we really mean?

 

[sangom]

When I started this thread about a week ago I started feeling puzzled and even a little awkward in the beginning because, though people seemed to be reading it but no replies were being posted for two days. In fact, I made even a mention of it in another thread while replying to Mr. Sangom, which resulted in several posts following thick and fast afterwards.

The discussion has touched an important aspect - the nexus between 'act' (which can be also termed karma) and 'intention'. While every 'act' is generally traced to some 'intention', does the reverse always happen? i.e., does always an 'intention' result in an 'act' - at least in an act, which can be traced back only to the original 'intention'? How accurate can be the inference of the true 'intention' of an 'act'?

I am reminded of a parable I read several years ago. I am not able to recall the source but the parable is well-etched in my memory. Perhaps, some of you also might have come across the parable.

The parable goes as follows: An old Buddhish monk was traversing a jungle with his young disciple (also a monk) following him reverentially a few feet behind him. Eventually, they reached a wild stream. They had to cross it to continue their journey. The stream, though not very deep, was a having a swift current. Just when they were going to step into the stream they heard a desperate voice, "Stop! Stop!!" They saw a young and singularly beautiful woman, running towards them. Out of breath due to her running, she just managed to plead with them in a halting tone, "Oh, holy men, please, I have to cross the stream urgently, but I am afraid that the strong current will drag me away if I venture into it. Please help me to cross it." Before the older one could even open his mouth, the young monk glared at her and shouted, "Woman! What a blasphemy! Don't you see that we are monks? We don't touch women. In fact, we should not even speak to young and beautiful women. Go away!" So saying, he got into the stream in a hurry to cross it. The older one took a glance at the plight of the woman, just lifted her in his arms and carrying her he also started crossing it. The disciple was flabbergasted at this act of his master and crossed the stream muttering some thing to himself. On reaching the other bank of the stream, the old monk gently put the woman down. The woman fell at his feet and started thanking him profusely. But the old one did not even stop for a moment and had started walking away. The muttering disciple followed him for a few yards and then abruptly stopped. He started shouting at his master, "Enough! I won't be your disciple any more. I can't follow you. You are not a true monk. You violated the norms and carried that woman across the river" The old master just smiled at him and said, "My poor man! I put down that woman immediately after crossing the stream. But, WHY ARE YOU STILL CARRYING HER?"

The parable shows that the 'intention' behind an 'act' need not necessarily always be inferred correctly. The 'intention' in the old monk's 'act' was interpreted wrongly by his disciple. On the other hand, one can have a wrong 'intention' even if no 'act' apparently results from it. The disciple saw only her ''beauty', whereas the master saw only her 'distress'.

So, when we say 'karma' and 'karmapalan' what do we really mean?

Shri CLN,

All activities by body, mind and intellect are "karma", because all these exercises - physical, mental as well as intellectual affect the person concerned and, when the mental and intellectual thoughts or karmas impel the body, physical action - both good and bad - will result. The action of a person in saving a beautiful maiden from drowning as well as another's to rape an equally beautiful maiden happen as a result of mental and/or intellectual actions first. Some authorities hold that mental/intellectual actions are as potent as physical. But whatever the truth may be you will agree that the non-physical karma is most useful in doing evil actions, because these are not discernible to others. Hence, as you rightly observe, the 'intention' behind an action may not be inferred correctly. With no disrespect to the guruji in your parable, it can theoretically still be argued whether the guru, left to himself, would have been altruistic and devoid of any trace of passion, and whether he was compelled to "behave himself" before his disciple. This can only be done by self-analysis; but all of us have some difficulty in doing an "impartial" self-analysis, because of our innate ego or "aham kaara" which will try to justify our triple-type karmas (physical, mental and intellectual) at all costs. In the case of the physical karma, mostly there will or can be external evaluation by others which will chasten the ego (in the case of some people at least) but in respect of the mental/intellectual karmas, you are your own judge, else there should be something like the confession of Christians. I do not know whether such a system is conducive to fostering goodness in humans or a failure in that respect.

 

[CLN]

Shri CLN,

All activities by body, mind and intellect are "karma", because all these exercises - physical, mental as well as intellectual affect the person concerned and, when the mental and intellectual thoughts or karmas impel the body, physical action - both good and bad - will result. The action of a person in saving a beautiful maiden from drowning as well as another's to rape an equally beautiful maiden happen as a result of mental and/or intellectual actions first. Some authorities hold that mental/intellectual actions are as potent as physical. But whatever the truth may be you will agree that the non-physical karma is most useful in doing evil actions, because these are not discernible to others. Hence, as you rightly observe, the 'intention' behind an action may not be inferred correctly. With no disrespect to the guruji in your parable, it can theoretically still be argued whether the guru, left to himself, would have been altruistic and devoid of any trace of passion, and whether he was compelled to "behave himself" before his disciple. This can only be done by self-analysis; but all of us have some difficulty in doing an "impartial" self-analysis, because of our innate ego or "aham kaara" which will try to justify our triple-type karmas (physical, mental and intellectual) at all costs. In the case of the physical karma, mostly there will or can be external evaluation by others which will chasten the ego (in the case of some people at least) but in respect of the mental/intellectual karmas, you are your own judge, else there should be something like the confession of Christians. I do not know whether such a system is conducive to fostering goodness in humans or a failure in that respect.

Interesting, Mr. Sangom! There is a curious but crucial angle as to how a person would behave in the presence of others and when he is alone, under identical cues. Take the query you have raised whether the guruji in my parable would have behaved exactly in the same way, had he been alone, apart from the woman herself. I believe that most religions say that God is 'omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. So, even if one is alone he is not really alone. So, every thing depends on how strong is one's faith. After all, every one is not a Prahlada, who could remain unswerving in his faith, against all the torture his father mounted upon him!

However, the guruji in my parable was a Buddhist monk. I understand that Buddha is generally dubbed an 'agnostic', as he insisted on only righteous deeds and not in the worship of any God and the rites & rituals he found being practised all around him. So, in the absence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God, how my I]Buddhist[/I] monk would have acted, had he been alone with the woman, we can only leave it to his own conscience and his own idea of what was righteous and was not, to decide to have or not to have any further interaction with the woman!

 

[sangom]

Interesting, Mr. Sangom! There is a curious but crucial angle as to how a person would behave in the presence of others and when he is alone, under identical cues. Take the query you have raised whether the guruji in my parable would have behaved exactly in the same way, had he been alone, apart from the woman herself. I believe that most religions say that God is 'omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. So, even if one is alone he is not really alone. So, every thing depends on how strong is one's faith. After all, every one is not a Prahlada, who could remain unswerving in his faith, against all the torture his father mounted upon him!

However, the guruji in my parable was a Buddhist monk. I understand that Buddha is generally dubbed an 'agnostic', as he insisted on only righteous deeds and not in the worship of any God and the rites & rituals he found being practised all around him. So, in the absence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God, how my I]Buddhist[/I] monk would have acted, had he been alone with the woman, we can only leave it to his own conscience and his own idea of what was righteous and was not, to decide to have or not to have any further interaction with the woman!

Shri CLN,

First, about Prahlada. You might have seen, in many films, scenes of cruel torture or rape or other things like that; but do you believe, even for a moment, that the actors/actresses really underwent those sufferings? (An interesting aside; I used to believe all such cinema scenes to be real in my early childhood and used to close my eyes, but the difficulty was to know when the bad scene ended and this usually resulted in my snatching a few of those "terrifying" scenes!!).

Back to the topic, I hold that the Prahlada story and many such similar accounts - including the description of hell in the garuda puraanam - are products of someone's fertile imagination and nothing more. Even with the utmost faith I don't think a normal, healthy human being can become insensitive to pain and fear of death.

Second, your reference to an "omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent" god; if true, such a god has to be necessarily without kindness or mercy, or, alternatively an entity insensitive to others' sufferings, if not possessing love for others' sufferings. Our entire bhakti cult will collapse rationally, in front of such a divinity. This theme has been ably discussed in a book entitled "God, a creation of man", by Shri A.N. Moorthy Rao.

Regarding the buddhist monk, the mahayana buddhism reveres buddha as we do our deities; so it would depend on whether the guru was heenayaanist or mahaayaanist!

 

[CLN]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Your POV that the tales of Prahlada and several other 'bhaktas' in the Puranas or else where, were 'products of someone's fertile imagination' may get mixed reception from the forum members. Those who find great solace and satisfaction in the various practices of bhakti cult like bhajans, naamasankeerthanams, pathanam, sravanam, pravachanam etc. of the 'charitrams' of Prahlada, Dhruva and many others may even feel disturbed at the view.

As for me, I accede that when some one makes movies, writes plays or gives discourses on stories of great devotees, it is an accepted practice by him, to take liberties rather liberally, over-dramatize and exaggerate incidents for the benefit of creating 'effect'. It becomes more so, as time passes. So, it is no wonder that in the case of our puranic stories which have come down to us over ages, there abound descriptions which do not stand strictly to reason. But that is not to say that there have been no heroes at all. History, leave alone Puranas, is replete with instances where torture has been faced with courage of conviction by such heroes. Certainly, they must have felt pain like any other human being, but they endured it all and stood their ground, some times firmly and some times not so firmly, but stand they certainly did. Jesus was crucified. Joan of Arc was burnt at stake. Samartha Ramadasa and Purandaradasa were jailed and tortured. More recently, many of our freedom fighters were jailed; some were banished to Andamans; some were even hanged to death! certainly, they must have all experienced pain, but they accepted it all. Coming specifically to Prahlada, I cited his example only for his 'unswervability' in his devotion, as depicted in the Puranas, and not for any thing else.

I too agree that the attributes of 'omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence' of God, the vivid descriptions of various kinds of torture described for various kinds of sins in Garudapurana were probably later day creations to inculcate a 'sense of fear' in the common folk, more than anything else.

Lastly, maybe 'my' Buddhist monk was after all a mahaayaanist and so felt that 'Bhagwan Buddha' was really 'watching' him!

 

[Nara]

.....The parable goes as follows: An old Buddhish monk But, WHY ARE YOU STILL CARRYING HER?"

Dear sir, there is a similar story and it is probably from Bhagavatham, but not sure. The story goes that a group of women were taking bath in a river without any clothes on, a clear no no per shasthras. Shuka Maharishi happened to pass by and the women continued with their bathing, did not bother. Walking some distance behind his son, Vyasa Bhagavan noticed all this. When he approached the spot the women hurriedly grabbed their clothes and covered themselves up.

Vyasa got very upset and asked the women to explain themselves, Suka in his youthful prime passes by and the ladies did not care being naked around him, but when an aging old man like Vyasa comes by, these ladies are treating as a lustful old bugger.

To this, the story goes, the women replied that Shuka is a paramaikanti and sees only Lord Krishna everywhere, but, even though Vyasa was old, he saw them as women, proven by the fact he even thought to ask them this question.

I feel temptation is natural, it originates from our genes. Jimmy Carter famously said he has committed adultery in his heart and he was widely mocked for saying so. I feel what is important is how we deal with it.

Even if no carnal thoughts passed the pupil's mind and he was strictly motivated by the traditional code of conduct, he erred because he put the traditional code ahead of the human need of the moment. Similarly, even if the master felt a stirring on the touch of the damsel while carrying her, he acted properly because, (i) he was able to control his flesh and (ii) he did not mind subordinating traditional code for the sake of helping the woman in the time of her need.

In other words, even if the master saw the woman as a woman, and did feel pangs of desire, and was tempted, he also saw the need of the woman and chose to help her without succumbing to his temptation. This version is more inspiring to me than saying that the master only saw the need of the woman and did not feel anything else -- that is too high a bar.

So, when we say 'karma' and 'karmapalan' what do we really mean?

Karma and karmaphalan are valid concepts just as long as we do not bring life after death and the notion that our actions while we are alive will somehow affect us after we are dead. Such superstitions cheapen our present and only life and also allow us to justify cruel acts against fellow human beings. When eternal life is promised after death it makes it that much easier for one to throw away the "present" life. When human suffering is explained away by poorva-janma karma, it makes it that much easier to not care about it.

I feel, all our actions constitute karma and karma phalan is the effect of our actions. Kind and compassionate acts have pleasant and positive effect for everyone concerned. Unkind and hateful acts have unpleasant and negative effect for everyone concerned. In the long term, if kindness and compassion predominates, that person is considered a good person and will be treated with kindness and compassion. If not, he/she will be shunned or even despised depending on the degree of unkindness. We can call this what-goes-around-comes-around theory of karma!

After death, we are gone, forever. Our karmaphalan may live on in the memory of others and the lingering after effects of our actions, good or bad. In due course of time even these effects will fade away. The intensity and scope may vary, memory and after effects of people like Ambedkar or Hitler may last lot longer than ordinary people. We all know about Chandragupta and Ashoka, but have no idea about out great-great grand parents, do we?

In summary, all we have is one life, our actions will have positive or negative effect upon us as well as others. Good acts will give pleasurable effects, bad acts will not. After death there is nothing. The life span we have here and now is the only one, when it is gone, it is gone for ever. It is unique, it is precious, and it is up to us to make the best of it, here and now.

Cheers!

 

[CLN]

Nara Sir, your analysis is indeed quite sound and appealing to me, particularly so, because it does not get entangled in the web of 'the cycle of births and re-births'. I think that it essentially summarises Buddha's teachings, as I understand it, not of his followers, the mahaayaanas, who simply deified him and established their own brand of rituals chiefly against which cult their master fought.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Your POV that the tales of Prahlada and several other 'bhaktas' in the Puranas or else where, were 'products of someone's fertile imagination' may get mixed reception from the forum members. Those who find great solace and satisfaction in the various practices of bhakti cult like bhajans, naamasankeerthanams, pathanam, sravanam, pravachanam etc. of the 'charitrams' of Prahlada, Dhruva and many others may even feel disturbed at the view.

Dear Shri CLN,

While I have no comments against the concept of a god or superhuman power, I feel we people should get rid of all the trappings and superstitious beliefs clinging to religion. Sankara's concept of "Brahman" has, if one can see with impartiality, many similarities with the Allah of Islam; Islam however portrays Allah in a different way but they have been successful so far in avoiding idol worship, which according to me takes our religion to a very low level. I feel the more the gods, the lesser the religion.

Of course, I know this will not find any support but I would like to state my view honestly.

As for me, I accede that when some one makes movies, writes plays or gives discourses on stories of great devotees, it is an accepted practice by him, to take liberties rather liberally, over-dramatize and exaggerate incidents for the benefit of creating 'effect'. It becomes more so, as time passes. So, it is no wonder that in the case of our puranic stories which have come down to us over ages, there abound descriptions which do not stand strictly to reason. But that is not to say that there have been no heroes at all. History, leave alone Puranas, is replete with instances where torture has been faced with courage of conviction by such heroes. Certainly, they must have felt pain like any other human being, but they endured it all and stood their ground, some times firmly and some times not so firmly, but stand they certainly did. Jesus was crucified. Joan of Arc was burnt at stake. Samartha Ramadasa and Purandaradasa were jailed and tortured. More recently, many of our freedom fighters were jailed; some were banished to Andamans; some were even hanged to death! certainly, they must have all experienced pain, but they accepted it all. Coming specifically to Prahlada, I cited his example only for his 'unswervability' in his devotion, as depicted in the Puranas, and not for any thing else.

Jesus, Joan of Arc, and freedom fighters died. I was told by an ex-police officer that people who are hanged, even die-hard criminals, cry, weep and all that as the date approaches and turn into something like half-mad people before the execution. Only those who are witnesses know, the real truth but there is an unwritten code of not revealing even a bit of it as a token of respect to the departed soul. In modern times, he said, there are drugs which will calm them to such anextent that the person is almost insensitive when taken to the gallows. I do not know if this information is true. If it is, then it is not as if "courage of conviction" will give them the type of ability that is typically shown in the accounts. As to Jesus, Joan of Arc, etc., we do not know what exactly happened and we are forced to believe the hagiographic accounts. same holds good in the case of Puranic personalities, according to me.

Regarding Samartha Ramadasa, Purandaradasa, etc., again the fact perhaps is that they were jailed, but whether they were tortured and if so, to what extent, etc., we cannot be sure. There is likely to be much exaggeration in the accounts we have now got.

I agree that Andamans was a tough prison and many were killed but we have no record whatever to prove that the patriots revealed the courage of conviction there. Notable leaders like Tilak were given better treatment and he could write books there.

 

[CLN]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Regarding your observation "I feel we people should get rid of all the trappings and superstitious beliefs clinging to religion", I feel the basic reason why such things have come into existence and have flourished is rooted in the fact that 'mental grasping ability' is not the same for all humans. Not all people have the intellectual prowess to grapple with the subtlety of "Brahman" directly. The gunavisesham of the Brahman itself is it being Nirgunabrahman! Sankara was an intellectual giant and so he strode like a Colossus. No wonder, he is widely believed to be an 'avatar' of 'Maheswara' Himself. Sukhabrahmam did not have to pass through long years of penance and austerity to attain the state he is acclaimed to have reached. Lesser mortals necessarily require easy props and the props have evolved over the years in various forms like the creation of several deities, with specific gunams, roopams, even friends and foes, weapons and vaahanams, as in Hindu Mythology. I feel even the followers of other religions which decry idol worship per se and which did not create several deities like Hindus and some other ancient religions did, are not really devoid of such props. Places like Kailash, Kaashi, Badrinath, Ayodhya, Brindavan, Bethlahem, Lourdes, Vatican, Mecca, Medina, symbolic forms like dhandam, Cross, Mitre, Sceptre, specific dress codes, specific marks and shapes worn on the forehead or elsewhere and even directions (like West from India), burial chambers of holy men - in fact any thing which is attached with some holiness is nothing other than a prop, a mean and a medium for the common majority in any religion in their conscious or unconscious quest for the 'Brahman', which is more of a concept, rather than a specific presence limited by spatial and temporal coordinates. No prop can ensure realization of the 'Brahman', but without any of these props, not many can take even a step forward in the quest for Brahman. Don't you feel so?

As for your reference to the different kinds of painful experiences some renowned personalities were subjected to and the doubts whether their 'courage of conviction' made the experiences any less painful to them, I do concede that there really is no way for us to know what exactly transpired and how heroically they faced up to their predicamants. But, still I feel that there is a fundamental difference between the martyrdom of the great personalities who have come to be admired and the hanging or beheading or gas-chambering or electrocuting of die-hard criminals. Perhaps, there may not have been much of a difference in the physical aspect of the pain experienced but I tend to think that their last thoughts may not have been of the same nature, though there is no way of knowing about it for certain. I think, how Kattabomman or Bhgat Singh felt in their last minutes must have been of a totally different kind in comparison to how a common criminal, say, "Auto Shankar" felt, or for that matter, how even Nathuram Godse or Sadam Hussein felt in their last minutes, despite the fact that all of them were hanged, accused as dangerous criminals.

 

[Nara]

.... I feel the more the gods, the lesser the religion.

Sangom sir, is this not a good thing -- less religion?

Here is my take ....

The more organized a religion is, the more damage it does to humans both physically and psychologically. Primitive religions of hunter/gatherers perhaps did not extend beyond making offering to their gods before going out on a hunt or something like that.

With organized religion comes the need to show one's own religion is better than the others. This is very clear in the case of Christianity and Islam, but it is true among the religions within the Hindu fold as well. There is constant debate between A, VA, D, and other offshoots of D. The history of relationship between Shaivites and Vaishnavites is filled with constant bickering and violent clashes, not to mention the rivers of Jaina blood spilled by Hindu kings, all in the name of their one god is the superior god, or their one religious dogma is the true dogma.

Another problem with advanced and organized religion is it gives rise to a kind of intellectualism which is really superstitions masquerading as philosophy and knowledge. This kind of thinking leads to a sort of disdain for scientific knowledge because, they say, it is incomplete and subject to improvement. In contrast, these advanced religions, be it Christianity or Islam, or the various branches of Brahminism, offer "perfect" knowledge, a knowledge that can only be intuited. They have nothing but their religious dogma to support these outlandish claims. Only an evolved person with keen intuition can see the whole unsullied truth, and if you can see it, then you are an evolved person with powers of intuition, if not, you are not evolved and lack intuition -- a classic case of circular logic!

I feel we do not need god or religion to lead a good life. There is not a single good thing that cannot be had unless we have religion. On the other hand, religion can make an otherwise good and compassionate person act in hateful and hurtful ways. The more organized the religion is, the more hateful the otherwise decent person is capable of.

So, I feel, it is best to not have any religion at all, but if we have to have religion, then let there be a religion with lots and lots of gods, with no priestly class, no hierarchy, each individual directly communicating to their chosen god, making deals, paying up only if the granted boon comes to pass, not having any particular philosophy, having many festivals and having lots of fun.

Cheers!

I am moving this to the Philosophy thread, where discussions of this kind are permitted. Please continue!
KRS

 

[CLN]

Dear Shri Nara,

Please do not mistake me to be nitpicking but I raise this question only with a genuine interest to know clearly about your stand.

While commenting on Mr. Sangom's remarks in this thread "I feel the more the gods, the lesser the religion" you have mentioned "I feel we do not need god or religion to lead a good life". On the other hand, while replying to Mr. Sarma Sastrigal in the thread "Prayashitta for not doing Sandyavandanam", you have upheld his very passionately propounded exposition on the importance of performing "SANDHYAVANDANAM" and have joined hands with him to declare that "any one claiming to be a brahmin and still not performing sandhyavandanam is but a hypocrite".

Does not Sandhyavandanam, for all its greatness and glory, contain obeisances and offerings to some deities (like Surya, Agni, Varuna, Prithvi, Yama etc.) not to mention the divyanamas of Sriman Narayana Himself? Further, Sandhyavandanam, Maadhyannikam and all other Japa-Tapa karmas involving Gaayathri Manthra were from post-Viswamitra period. Manthras like "Apasarpa sarpa bhadranthe ...." which refers to Janamejaya's Sarpa Yajna, must have been even later-day additions.

While I am not here to decry "Sandhyavandanam" or deride the practice of "Nithyakarmas" prescribed, how can we reconcile the two extreme thoughts - one of not having any gods and religions and the other teaming with gods?

 

[sangom]

Sangom sir, is this not a good thing -- less religion?

Dear Shri Nara,

There was some ambiguity in the use of the word "lesser", I agree. What I intended was of a "lower grade, effectiveness". In that respect I feel that a formless god will be the best - something like Allah. I do not agree with CLN's views that "props" are required for people to realize truth. Shia Muslims do not go to the maqbaras, daghas etc. But are not Muslims of all categories - rich & poor, scholars & illiterates - able to follow that religion without prop, other than a common place to pray? So, to say Hindus need 33 crores of devas to follow a religious discipline is nonsense, according to me.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

Please do not mistake me to be nitpicking but I raise this question only with a genuine interest to know clearly about your stand.

While commenting on Mr. Sangom's remarks in this thread "I feel the more the gods, the lesser the religion" you have mentioned "I feel we do not need god or religion to lead a good life". On the other hand, while replying to Mr. Sarma Sastrigal in the thread "Prayashitta for not doing Sandyavandanam", you have upheld his very passionately propounded exposition on the importance of performing "SANDHYAVANDANAM" and have joined hands with him to declare that "any one claiming to be a brahmin and still not performing sandhyavandanam is but a hypocrite".

Does not Sandhyavandanam, for all its greatness and glory, contain obeisances and offerings to some deities (like Surya, Agni, Varuna, Prithvi, Yama etc.) not to mention the divyanamas of Sriman Narayana Himself? Further, Sandhyavandanam, Maadhyannikam and all other Japa-Tapa karmas involving Gaayathri Manthra were from post-Viswamitra period. Manthras like "Apasarpa sarpa bhadranthe ...." which refers to Janamejaya's Sarpa Yajna, must have been even later-day additions.

While I am not here to decry "Sandhyavandanam" or deride the practice of "Nithyakarmas" prescribed, how can we reconcile the two extreme thoughts - one of not having any gods and religions and the other teaming with gods?

Dear S/Shri CLN and Nara,

Excusing me for interfering. I am sure that what Nara says is not that Sandhyavandan (SV) is a very laudable, unavoidable, thing; what he wanted to emphasize was that there are many among us (or is it all of us) who do not perform it as per the rules and still claim to be brahmins and that too really orthodox and all that.

The mantra "apasarppa" is part of "stala suddhi", bhoota suddhi, etc., mantras before you settle down for undisturbed gaayatree japa. While on the one hand SV and 108/1008 repetitions of gaayatree all vouchsafe to increase your Brahma: teja:, as per orthodox beliefs, it is not a valid anti-dote against snake-bites and a host of other probable dangers which might lurk around a person going into deep meditation reciting gaayatree and realize Brahman itself. (snake-bite might expedite it in an unwanted way, you see!).

 

[Nara]

....While I am not here to decry "Sandhyavandanam" or deride the practice of "Nithyakarmas" prescribed, how can we reconcile the two extreme thoughts - one of not having any gods and religions and the other teaming with gods?

Dear Shri CLN, Shri Sangom has already clarified and that is my position. I am what one might call a strong agnostic, i.e. an agnostic in a technical sense, but an atheist for all intents and purposes. Further, I also believe faith in one or more supernatural entity, and the religion such faith engenders, are not necessary to lead a good life with love and compassion for all. I also feel, the damage the great religions of the world have wrought is too great a price to pay for whatever delusional solace they may offer to the people of faith.

Coming to my comment about sandhyavandanam, I think Shri Sarma Sasthirgal's position is spot on, totally consistent with what is expected of a Brahmin, i.e., if he has faith, and professes to have faith, in such things. So, not doing them at all, or doing them when time permits, or skipping madhyanhikam, doing only 10 gayathri (you know, 10 gayathri is only during theettu time, a minimum of 28 is alright but is like passing a class with 1 mark about F, true believers must do 1008 in the morning, and 108 the other two times), etc., means that non-performing Brahmin is unfaithful to his creed. This is the point I was trying to convey, not that I believe in these things, I do not.

Cheers!

 

[CLN]

Thanks for the clarifications to you both, Mr. Nara and Mr. Sangom.

Although it is not germane to the main issue on which I raised my queries on the posts of both of you, I guess there are large variations in the 'sandhyavandana' manthras themselves, even within groups that belong to the same veda tradition, not to speak of the greater variations found among the compilations meant for the followers of different vedas and sutras. To cite just one example, the "Apasarpa sarpa bhadranthe ..." which I had referred to in my post is supposed to be recited before doing the vital "gayathri" the prescribed number of times for "sthala suddhi" etc. as mentioned by you, Mr. Sangom, whereas in our practice, it is done, along with other manthras like "Narmadaayai Namah Praatah ...", "Namah Savitre ..." "Ritagum Satyam ..." etc. after upasthaanam only.

 

[sangom]

Thanks for the clarifications to you both, Mr. Nara and Mr. Sangom.

Although it is not germane to the main issue on which I raised my queries on the posts of both of you, I guess there are large variations in the 'sandhyavandana' manthras themselves, even within groups that belong to the same veda tradition, not to speak of the greater variations found among the compilations meant for the followers of different vedas and sutras. To cite just one example, the "Apasarpa sarpa bhadranthe ..." which I had referred to in my post is supposed to be recited before doing the vital "gayathri" the prescribed number of times for "sthala suddhi" etc. as mentioned by you, Mr. Sangom, whereas in our practice, it is done, along with other manthras like "Narmadaayai Namah Praatah ...", "Namah Savitre ..." "Ritagum Satyam ..." etc. after upasthaanam only.

Dear Shri CLN,

In most of the Tabra rituals, the family practice is the most applicable. So when a boy is given upanayanam, though the vaadhyaar tells him the mantras during the first 2 or 3 days till the daNDuneer, there onwards it is the elders who teach until the boy is able to do the three sandhyas without help. Thus whatever mantras were taught in the family line will suffice.

But now none of the elders themselves are sure; they go to books, cassettes, videos etc., for help and those are done by others who follow their practice. So, we are forced to see the demise of the family-practice (the word kula aacaara has a tantric meaning, so I am not using it here.).

 

[Nara]

.... "sthala suddhi" etc. as mentioned by you, Mr. Sangom, whereas in our practice, it is done, along with other manthras like "Narmadaayai Namah Praatah ...", "Namah Savitre ..." "Ritagum Satyam ..." etc. after upasthaanam only.

Dear CLN sir, I have a book called Ahnika Grantham written by the 45th Azhagiya Singar of Sri Ahobila Matam - I am sure such a text exists for other sampradaya too. This book is some three inches thick. It covers everything from how to get out of bed, how to brush teeth, how to clean anus, how to take a bath, and on and on till how to go to bed and even when to do homam with the mother of your children.

Srimat Azhgiya Singar himself admits that nobody can truly follow all the injunctions laid out. So, I wonder, what is the point? What is the point of laying out all these injunctions that nobody can follow? Perhaps it makes one imagine, and feel proud, that our forefathers, at some distant past, really followed all this supposedly divine, but pointless, rituals.

Cheers!