Site Title

Tag: religion

  • Commonalities between three greatest Indian spiritual philosophers

    Lately, I have started to wonder whether the tools for professional success are the same as those required for spiritual success. Knowledge, hard work, perseverance, ambition, expressiveness, and tenacity are well-known, well-documented ingredients of success in the business world, but are they enough to grow in the spiritual realm? In search of an answer, I embarked on an endeavor to read about those people who, in my view, have reached the pinnacle of this vast, invigorating, mystical, and intricate world of spirituality. To initiate my journey, I did not had to look beyond our great nation, India. Although the geographical boundaries of a country are defined and well marked, the “spiritual boundaries” of a nation, like India, are limitless and permeate the vastness of the universe.

    This ancient civilization, spanning more than five thousand years, has produced some of the most profound thinkers in the world. These thinkers have impacted the lives of millions of people not only in their country of origin, but their thoughts have touched the “soul” of scores of people around the world. I think the three most thought-provoking and inspirational spiritual philosophers that the subcontinent, once called “sone ki chidiya”, has produced are M.K Gandhi, Swami Vivekananda, and Guru Nanak. Reading and learning about them made me draw a few common grounds that connected their thoughts and ideas. The bedrock of these eternal ideas that changed how an ordinary Indian views religion, society, and spiritual progress stands on a common platform. Some of the commonalities where the minds of these three great “spiritual giants” meet are:

    A modern view of religion: “The Story of My Experiments with Truth” is one of the most uplifting books that I have read in my life. In one of the instances mentioned in the book, Gandhi describes his experience of visiting the Kashi Vishwanath temple situated in the “holy” Indian city of Benares. His spiritual expectations were devastated in observing the uncleanliness and chaos in the bazaars leading to the temple. The noise, the swarming flies, the slippery lanes made his stopover “perfectly insufferable”. No wonder that the unkempt shrine made him question “how Indians could successfully manage self-government if they could not even keep their most sacred places of worship clean and peaceful.”

    If one studies Swami Vivekananda in depth, one would be enlightened by the fact that the “reverent monk” was one of the biggest critics of the social evils and rigid rituals of Hindu society in particular and Indian society in general. He famously gave the term “Kitchen religion,” which he associated with “don’t- touchism”, which, in his own terms, was “the obsession with ritualistic purity, such as what to eat or touch, rather than spiritual depth”. In this context, he went even further and stated that many Indians have taken their faith to their kitchens and made “cooking utensils” their religion. In a gist, he harshly censured the existing religious dogmas in Indian society and placed enormous emphasis on internalized spiritual growth rather than just blindly following the nonsensical practices in one’s creed and belief system.

    Although founder of Sikhism (one of the youngest religions in the world), and its first Guru, I prefer calling Nanak the “Guru of the entire humanity” rather than just a Sikh Guru. There is a narrative from his “Janamsakhi” (literally meaning birth stories) when he was lying down with his legs towards the “Kaaba”. When an offended Arab priest objected to this perceived “blasphemy,” Nanak calmly replied, asking the priest to turn his legs in a direction where God does not exist. This reflects how shallow the conviction is of those who find God only in a few man-made structures. Nanak’s message was vividly that God is omnipresent.

    Another notable incident from his life was when he visited Haridwar and on seeing people throwing water eastwards towards the rising sun. Upon his inquiry, people told the Guru that they are quenching the thirst of their ancestors who live in the heavens towards the east. On hearing this, Nanak entered the Ganges and started throwing the water towards the west. Baffled with this act, people asked him why is he dousing water in that direction. The Guru replied that his fields in Punjab were in dire need of this water. With even greater perplexity, priests started laughing and said how can the water go that far. Nanak, with all his calmness and composure replied that if the water can go millions of miles towards the heavens in east, it could surely reach his fields just a few hundred miles away. The “first master” was a proponent of sensible thinking and was a champion of religious unity. This reminds me of the following famous adage:

    “Nanak Shah Fakir – Na Hindu Na Musalman”

    In essence, what connects these aforementioned episodes is that each of these figures of titanic spiritual strength critiqued the religious dogmas that existed in the society during their lifetimes. I have a firm opinion that reform, whether it is personal or societal, cannot be implemented without critiquing one’s own set of principles and practices. In other words, constructive criticism opens doors for reforms and reforms in turn provide an innovative and modern alternative to existing inflexible doctrines.

    The views and perspectives of these three leaders make an incision into our doctrinaire Indian society, where people follow religion with an unquestioning mind. In my own humble experience, I have seen people making a trade or a business deal with their God. The mode of worship that largely exists in our society is just ringing bells in the places of worship, reciting scriptures, or rotating prayer beads, and that too is geared towards the fulfilment of their personal objectives. Although, there is nothing immoral in that but it certainly cannot lead to a spiritual enlightenment. On the contrary, the lives of these three great men introduces us to a path where the true form of worship is the one which is tied to public service. “Sewa parmo dharma” is the highest duty and way towards spiritual elevation.

    Being an agnostic, I am still skeptical as far as the existence of the “almighty” is concerned, but what I am unequivocal about is that if there indeed is a superpower, then the ledger on which his evaluation of our lives would be based would not be as to how many times we have recited a “mantra” or visited a place of worship, but on how many destitute lives we have impacted and changed. In a spiritual journey, one should free himself from the shackles of following a rigid methodology with absolutely no rational basis and adopt an experimental mindset towards enlightenment.

    Unbounded Intellect: I have a strong intuition that God (if one exists) does not like people who worship him out of fear but would appreciate those who could intellectually argue with him. Intellect is after-all the biggest and greatest gift of the “Lord” to homo sapiens that distinguishes us from the animal world. On these lines, a related parallel that I draw is that all three luminaries were well versed in the philosophical texts and religious scriptures that belonged to the ideologies of different societies and sects other than their own. This confirms to my personal belief that in order to understand religion and spirituality at its core, one has to dive deeply into the unbiased and unfeigned analysis of all the major religions and prominent thinkers of the world. Let’s take the case of Swami Vivekananda. It is well documented that while in college, he thoroughly studied Western philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Herbert Spencer. He was also well versed in the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam.

    Same was true of Gandhi. Although during the days he thought his life was ending due to an illness , he regularly listened to Bhagavad Gita, he possessed intense knowledge of the world religions and even believed that he has made the religions of world his own. I regard Gandhi as one of the most erudite Indians of all times. Not only was he widely read, but as a copious writer, his legacy also includes a tome of published work. Similarly, when we talk about Guru Nanak, it is believed that during his youth, he “soaked” himself in the study of both Hinduism and Islam. He was also a great poet. In the words of Khushwant Singh, “Nanak was a poet of uncommon sensitivity who could turn his pen from gentle satire to rapturous praise “. The nucleus of my argument being that in order grow spiritually, it is vital to have an understanding and an appreciation of all major faiths in the world. This provides an intellectual depth and in my modest opinion, intellectual growth and spiritual upliftment are mutually inclusive.

    The philosophy of detachment: This is the most challenging but at the same time, an absolutely essential ingredient of attaining spiritual awakening. As per Bhagavad Gita, “Detachment is engaging fully with your duties while remaining free from anxiety of the results”. As per the same sacred book, detachment is like a “lotus metaphor, being in water but being untouched by him”. In my view, reaching this state of mind is tantamount to reaching an emotional state which is extremely arduous to achieve in our contemporary “dog eat dog” world. However, all the three foregoing spiritual philosophers I discussed about led their lives free of attachment and through their works, showed the world how to conquer this formidable “demon” of attachment that resides within our hearts.

    I have just initiated on my spiritual expedition and my steps and efforts are still at a very nascent stage. However, as I set out to this life long voyage, I have found these three spiritual philosophers who can become my beacon of light towards this demanding yet exhilarating journey. In that regards, I quote this relevant “doha” from the great Kabir:

    “Guru Govind dou khade, kaake lagun pay.Balihari guru apne, Govind diyo batay.”

  • Reflections on Mahabharata: Part – I: A few thoughts on Karna

    There is no other religious text that I have read about more than Mahabharata. In my view, it is an indelible spiritual gift from India to the world. I still vividly remember the profound book, “The Essence of Bhagavad Gita“, written by Swami Kriyananda, which I bought and read in the year 2008. Beyond just making an earnest effort to comprehend the intricacies of this “longest epic poem in the world” encompassing life’s infinite depth in the written textual form, I have watched adaptations of Mahabharata in its visual form as well. From watching B.R Chopra’s masterpiece umpteen number of times, to watching the captivating episodes on this subject as depicted in “Bharat Ek Khoj”, I have had the opportunity to approach this eternal work on human life and behavior as a sincere student.

    As with any other subject or aspect in life, if one continually inquires about it, he starts to formulate an opinion about it. So is my case with Mahabharata. I have always been intrigued by its characters and how they relate to us in the contemporary times. Of all the characters in this intense and soul touching literary work , one that has ignited my thoughts the most is the mystical yet dramatic character of Karna. Here are some of my perspectives:

    The greatest “Warrior” of his time: Around the final stages of the eighteen day war, when Duryodhana, exhausted and in sorrow, entered the “Dwaipayana Lake”, Yudhishthira ridicules him and challenges him to come out of the lake and face his fate. At the very moment, Krishna discourses with the Pandavas that had Indra not taken Karna’s impenetrable armor and his earrings (in my view , this was an act of deceit), his death was impossible. Legend says that no weapon could pierce Karna’s armor (Kavacha) and even a “Divyastra” would bow to it and return back. It is also believed that his earring’s (Kundalas) made him invincible.

    Now it is generally argued that Arjuna was the greatest archer of his time. I find a lot of merit in the argument that Arjuna was indeed the man of focus and among the greatest warriors in Mahabharata. But was he better than Karna? I doubt. People sometimes cite “Virata war” where Arjuna injured Karna from the arrows of his divine “Gandiva” bow. However, it is a fact that Karna (and it is believed that at the time of this conflict, he did not had his celestial “Vijaya” bow given to him by his guru, Parshurama)also pierced the chest of Arjuna with his thirteen arrows.

    The last argument to build my first point of view is the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna just before the beginning of the war. When Krishna returns to Pandavas camp after deciding the “rules of engagement” and Arjuna asks him what took him so long, Krishna answers that he met with the people he likes and that included Karna. Arjuna, on hearing this, bursts in anger (and aguish) and asks back “why did you had to go to that son of a charioteer?”. Hearing this, Krishna silences Arjuna by pointing out that Karna is the only warrior who has an arrow in his quiver which makes him worried for Arjuna’s safety.

    Based on this, I opine that even the “Lord” himself knew that even Arjuna could not defeat Karna, especially in a fair one to one duel. No wonder, both Krishna and Kunti made several attempts to “buy” out this first Pandavas and to break up with Duryodhana.

    An eternal optimist: There is a famous incident from the war when Shalya becomes the charioteer of Karna. He constantly aims to peel off courage from Karna mindset like someone slowly and effectively peels off the skin of an onion. Whether it be Bhishma Pitamah, Guru Dronacharya, Parshuram, Draupadi or the Pandavas, there is not even a single “great soul” who does not flings insults on Karna and attempts to bring down his morale. Even after all these slights and multiple curses on him, he never looses faith in his ability and skill. In the entire treatise of Mahabharata, if there is one personality that does not knows the meaning of dejection and pessimism, even though being target of incessant affronts, it is Karna.

    Moral grounding: Last year, I wrote an article titled “How righteous was karna“. In that article I argued that when it comes to morality and depravity, Karna was as righteous and as villainous as the Pandavas. If he hurled insults on Draupadi during the game of dice, she was also the one who rejected Karna during the “swayamvar” (Bride- choosing ceremony) just on the basis that he was not a “Kshatriya” (of warrior class). Is it not tantamount to practicing inequality and discrimination? Well, it may be argued that it was Krishna himself who signaled Draupadi to reject Karna, but there are other cases where arrogance of Draupadi have been documented in the epic. And what about Yudhishthira who gambled away his wife? Yes, the Pandavas did pay the price for that, but so did Karna for his acts of vices.

    My stance here is that Karna was as moral and as immoral as any other character in the scripture. Even during the war, besides Bhishma Pitamah, there was no other chief military commander whose conduct was as ethical as Karna. His pulling back his arrow to his quiver (which could have otherwise killed Arjuna) after the sunset is another example in this context.

    There is a famous saying from Rishi Vyasa about Karna when he meets him during Rajasuya Yagna of King Yudhishthira. The prime sage adorns Karna with respect by saying that there is no one in all the three “lokas” (world’s) who does not knows this great warrior.

  • How righteous was Karna?

    Mahabharata is considered to be the longest written poem in the world. The nucleus of it is “Bhagwat Gita” which provides deep reflections on how one should conduct his life. However, unlike millions of Hindus, I do not consider Mahabharata to be a work of history. For me it is a mythology. I don’t deny that the events described in this great epic never occurred but I do not accept the folklore surrounding it. Kurukshetra war might have happened and the characters might have existed too , but I do not buy the supernatural events encompassing it.

    Whether Mahabharata is a work of history or mythology is a discussion for another time, but I have been inspired by many of its characters throughout my life. The “folk tale” contains several situations that one can relate to in their own lives. It is a saga of triumph, of loss, of malign, of love, of virtues and of frivolous decisions made by “great men” of those times.

    One character that stands out and grabs my attention is that of Karna. People usually consider him as someone doomed by destiny who had to align with the “evil” Duryodhana. Was he righteous in his conduct? Did his actions earned him a place in the “Heaven” as the mythology states? I think he had his share of mistakes and “immoral” conduct, but before concluding that Karna had an “evil frame of mind”, one has to think in context of the circumstances in which those vices were committed.

    Abandoned by Kunti, he was raised by his foster parents, Radheya and Adhiratha. He was rejected by Dronacharya who refused to take him as his disciple on the grounds that he was not a “Kshatriya” (or Warrior). He eventually got trained by Parshurama, who cursed him that all the learnings that he got from him would be rendered useless when he needs them the most. The reason behind this curse was that Parshurama thought that Karna had hidden his real identity from him and got the training in a clandestine manner.

    Karna’s misfortune does not ends there. He was also cursed by a “Brahmin” that on the most decisive battle of his life, the wheel’s of his chariot would be submerged in the ground and the “demon of fear” will surround him from all sides. To add to his adversity, Indra, the God of rain visited him at a time when he granted people with anything they asked from him. Indra, disguised as a Brahmin, deceived him and took away his divine armor and his earrings. This armor had the power to protect Karna from any divine weapon and his earrings gave him strength of an elephant. Krishna, the Hindu deity, mentions it himself that had Indra not taken the armor and earrings from Karna, his defeat was impossible.

    Despite of all these maledictions, he never left hope and is known as an epitome of valor. Many do argue that he insulted Draupadi during the infamous game of dice and that he also joined Duryodhana in slaying the young and armless warrior Abhimanyu. These make him as much a partner in crime as Duryodhana. I would argue that albeit these instances cannot be refuted and hold merit to some degree, one also has to understand the venomous slangs thrown by Draupadi on Karna.

    During the “Swayamvar” of Draupadi, Karna contested for her hand along with other princely warriors including Arjuna. Karna was the first one to lift up the Bow and knot its string but was “brazenly” rejected by Draupadi on the grounds that he was a “Sootputra” (son of a Charioteer) and not eligible for her garland. On another occasion, the “arrogant” Draupadi insulted Duryodhana by calling her “Andhe ka Putra Andha”, which means blind son of a blind man. Despite this, he was thoughtful enough to question and object Duryodhana and his wicked uncle Shakuni for their treacherous means of killing Pandavas. It was his unwavering commitment to Duryodhana that made him offend Draupadi during the game of Dice. All these, along with Yudhishthira’s intoxication with the game of dice laid the foundations for the battle of Kurukshetra.

    Karna was a dedicated friend, a wise ruler of the kingdom of Anga, and embodied all the great virtuous of Pandavas. Even Krishna himself appreciated and praised Karna on many occasions. He had a soft corner for karna and said at one point before the battle that if he wished, he would want karna to never fight the battle since it was only him who had the “astras” or the weapons to defeat Arjuna.

    So was Karna righteous? I would say he was as righteous and as villainous as the Pandavas.