Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVI

Dr. Bibek Debroy

Setting the tone for the New Year, Dr. Bibek Debroy vivifies our sense of inquiry, and   leaves us with more questions than answers to ponder. The answers are within us, rather than without, he suggests. He reminds us that Hinduism has a library rather than 'a book', and further, that theories and texts merely provide a conceptual framework. How then do we pursue puruṣārthas (dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa)? How do we find answers? What is your view? Leave a comment or interact with Bibek on Twitter via his handle @bibekdebroy 




यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः। वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यद्स्तीति वादिनः॥  That’s BG 2.42.  Loosely translated, those who aren’t learned, speak flowery words and say that there is nothing else other than the words of the Vedas.  The word Shabda-Brahma has many meanings and nuances.  In some contexts, it means the Brahma that can be attained through sound, hymns, mantras and rites. (Please don’t hasten to correct me about other meanings of Shabda-Brahma, since I have hedged adequately.)  This is in contrast to the Para-Brahma of Vedanta.  For example, 6.44 of BG states, जिञ्जासुरपि योगस्य शब्दब्रह्मातिवर्तते.  Again translated loosely, those who inquire about yoga, transcend Shabda-Brahma.  Whether attainment of Shabda-Brahma is a necessary and sufficient condition to attain Para-Brahma, has been the subject of philosophical speculation.  Clearly, according to some beliefs, it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.  But let’s leave that debate aside.  

Our sacred texts are divided into shruti and smriti.  In a loose sense again, shruti is revelation.  Shruti texts weren’t composed by anyone in particular.  They were revealed to rishis.  Stated differently, rishis put down their experiences in shruti texts.  In contrast, smriti texts have specific composers.  Notice that BG is a smriti text. It isn’t shruti. Whenever I say, or write, anything about dharma, artha, kāma, or mokṣa (DAKM), there is a predictable reaction.  But such and such a text says such and such.  That contradicts whatever you have said or written.  The reason I am proud to be a Hindu is that there is no definitive sacred text.  Even the BG isn’t quite the single sacred text, though it captures much of the essence of Hinduism. That’s the reason, if you cite chapter and verse from some sacred text, I will be able to cite chapter and verse from some other sacred text that seems to suggest the opposite.  

In the last resort, what are religion and DAKM about?  They are about what you experience and your experiences might be different from mine.  The problem with religion interpreted in terms of a single sacred text is that it tends to become dogmatic.  This has been stated in a sacred text and therefore, I have to accept it as a matter of faith.  I don’t think that’s what Hinduism is about.  In that narrow sense, it isn’t about faith.  It’s about experiencing.  In that sense, it is empirical.  It is something that can be tested.  When the rishis set down the shruti texts, they were effectively documenting their experiences and nothing more.  Lest you think that I am saying something heretical or novel, that’s exactly what Swami Vivekananda said in his monograph on “Raja Yoga”.

The theory and the sacred texts provide a conceptual framework and no more.  At best, since others have experienced something and they aren’t all charlatans, I should try it out.  In tantra and yoga, I can give the taxonomy of the chakras (from muladhara up to sahasrara) and kundalini and ida/pingala.  But DAKM isn’t about what Patanjali, Panini, Vyasa or Kapila have said.  Nor is it about Swami Vivekananda, Swami Yogananda or Swami Sivananda. These are nothing but exhortations to us to try it out.  Science is based on empirical evidence.  

So is DAKM, except that the empirical evidence doesn’t pertain to the external world.  It pertains to what is inside us and that cannot be captured through the senses.  The taxonomy merely says that all of us have latent powers.  We don’t use our potential powers fully.  There is thus potential divinity in all of us, if that is the expression to be used.  In this era of science, there is legitimate reason to treat what religious teachers have said with skepticism.  But since I don’t believe the empirical evidence of religious teachers, the right response should be to try it out.  That’s the only way the hypothesis can be falsified.  I hope you now understand why I said I am not interested in citations from chapters and verses of sacred texts.

योग: चित्त-वृत्ति निरोध: The trouble with Patanjali is that these are sutras.  They are cryptic and need explanations.  This is 1.2 from Patanjali.  I will not give a translation, because you will then quibble about whether I have translated chitta, vritti and nirodha properly.  Different people have translated it in different ways.  This is Swami Vivekananda.  “Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff (citta) from taking various forms (vrittis).”  Without a commentary, I don’t think this is a particularly illuminating or good translation.  But that’s neither here, nor there.  Yoga is about self-control and restraint and realizing one’s own inner self.  Given 1.2, in the 8-fold yoga category, it is about yama and niyama.  Going back to empirical testing, try it out.  Will you find “divinity”?  Will you get special powers?  Will it change you?  I don’t know.  I think the answer depends on you and on how far you are up the ladder, certainly in response to the first two questions.  

For the third question, I can give a categorical answer.  It will change you.  As I have said in passing in an earlier blog, you changing isn’t only about what you will get.  It is also about what you will lose. योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनंजय । सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ।।  That’s 2.48 of BG.  Loosely translated again, perform your tasks without any attachment, by resorting to yoga.  Be indifferent to success and failure.  This equality/indifference is said to be yoga.  If you spend some time on meditation every day, you will automatically lose the attachment and gain the detachment.  I don’t care, nor know, about special powers (siddhi), except through reading what people have said.  But what I have described is a significant enough gain and it isn’t पुष्पितां वाचं.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XV

Once more Bibek Debroy forces us to think beyond the obvious, and plumb the depths of central concepts like 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' The Mahabharata tells us that 'dharma' is subtle and complex. But Dr. Debroy's article brings that idea to life for us with contemporary examples that compel us to stop being simplistic; to meditate on the meaning of words we take for granted.
To share your views and responses, you can follow Bibek on Twitter @bibekdebroy and/or leave a comment on this blog.


Recently, I spoke to a group of CEOs in Udaipur.  While I have spoken to CEOs in the past, it’s always been about economics and policy-making.  This is the first time I spoke about “dharma”.  Since I have made the point in earlier blogs that the word dharma is over-used, I should clarify that in Udaipur, I used the word “dharma” in the sense of emancipation/liberation, not in the sense of duty or good behavior (sadachara). Understandably, CEOs and the corporate sector react in a particular way, not necessarily representative of the general populace.  Since I spoke extempore, there is no presentation or text I can share.  But I made the kinds of points I have been making in these blogs.  

Dr. Debroy was recently at Lake Pichola

Let me now report three kinds of contrary reactions that were common.  (1) How can you say that food and dietary habits represent sadachara and have nothing to do with dharma?  It’s important to be vegetarian.  Eating non-vegetarian food causes injury to life.  (2) How can you say that there is no absolute notion of “good” or “bad”?  What about a murderer?  (3) How can you say that we are powerless to change the world, as opposed to changing ourselves?  If that’s the case, there would be no reason to do anything.  My reactions were along predictable lines.  Obviously, I failed to convince the CEOs, or some of them.  Otherwise, I wouldn’t have reported these three kinds of general contrary reactions.  Nor is it my intention to convince you, or even attempt it. I can only give you my take.

This vegetarian non-vegetarian business is as old as the hills and you will find extensive discussions in the Mahabharata.  Let me mention the sage Koushika to you.  I have spoken about a sage Koushika earlier, in connection with speaking the truth.  We don’t quite know whether this was the same sage Koushika.  After all, Koushika was a family name, rather than a proper name.  Koushika meditated in the forest and obtained a lot of powers.  A bird happened to soil him.  Koushika was angry.  When he glared at the bird in anger, it burnt down and was reduced to ashes.  Later, Koushika went to beg for alms at a house and the lady of the house kept him waiting, because she was tending to her husband.  Koushika was enraged, but was surprised to see that the housewife knew all about his powers and the incident concerning the bird.  His rage was also powerless on her.  When he asked her in surprise, she explained that she was doing her own “dharma” of tending to her husband and that brought her more merits than any austerities.  She directed him to a “vyadha”, a hunter cum butcher.  

Enraged Koushika reduces a bird to ashes

What the hunter cum butcher taught Koushika has come to be known as “Vyadha-Gita” and is a remarkable exposition of dharma.  In the process, there is a discussion on vegetarianism versus non-vegetarianism too.  My points are the following.  First, food and dietary habits are a function of society, history and culture and nothing more.  Second, dharma is about the atman and controlling the senses, the mind, intelligence and consciousness.  This becomes easier when the body is physically fit, one of the functions of some elements of yoga.  Good food habits make for a healthy body.  Therefore, restraint in food is good.  Third, why should we make a fetish about vegetarianism?  Imagine a person who is a vegetarian, but is frightfully obese, thriving on fried food and sweets and contrast that person with someone who eats non-vegetarian food, but is Spartan and controlled in diet.  Does dharma become easier for the former?  I don’t think so.  We are confusing the means with the end.  Fourth, there are societies where non-vegetarian food is customary.  Are we implying that people who live in such societies will never be able to attain dharma?  That seems like a very dogmatic position to take.

Move on to the absolute notion of “good” or “bad”.  Who is a murderer and what is a crime?  Notice that crime is always defined with respect to a piece of legislation, conditional on society.  On the matter of murder, what’s the conceptual difference between my killing someone and an executioner executing someone in one of those “rarest of rare” cases, after due process of law?  Both are murder, except that the first is not sanctioned by society, while the second is.  Suppose you live near the Indo-Pakistan border and there is a skirmish.  If you are on this side of the border, the terrorist is someone who deserves to be killed.  But if you are on that side of the border, the terrorist may well be a freedom-fighter.  A difference of less than 10 km on where you reside will determine the difference between “good” and “bad”.  I can multiply examples to illustrate the inherent subjectivity involved.  And because of that subjectivity, notions of “good” and “bad” should not be confused with dharma.  

The Nazis thought they were doing good for society.  That’s also the reason I am skeptical of item (3), attempts to change the world and make it better.  Many undesirable events in the world have occurred because people tried to make the world a better place, “better” being a subjective term too. Thankfully, in the progress of human civilization, these attempts only leave a transient impression.  They don’t last.  Attempts to change the world flow from an over-inflated sense of ego and a bloated idea about one’s own importance.  But we can certainly change ourselves.  If we are able to successfully change ourselves from within, and provided we have been able to bring about that change, we can also make other people change.  That’s the kind of impact many religious leaders have had.  It is through changing people that the world changes, with more of sattva and less of tamas.  That’s it and no more.  But like I said, don’t agree with me.  My intention is only to make you think and find the answers inside.  There is no universal template.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XIV

Dr. Bibek Debroy

In this blog post, Bibek Debroy touches upon the suffusion of Vedantic thought in Hindu texts. He also encourages us to shatter stereotypes. Supreme knowledge is not the preserve of the devas. Nor of men alone. He echoes Swami Vivekananda in indicating that atman has no gender, no imperfection. And that categories such as 'asura' need to be examined intelligently and in an informed manner. I couldn't agree with him more. My raison d'etre - be it this blog, or my Twitter presence, is to persuade you to 'Read the Scriptures Yourself'. Preferably in Sanskrit. And get a taste of the 'wealth' that Bibek has undoubtedly amassed.


In the last blog, I mentioned Bali, Namuchi and Prahlada/Prahrada.  Here is a quote. “Some speak of him as Agni and some speak of him as Prajapati.  Others say he is the seasons, the fortnights, the months, the days and the moments.  There are others who say he is the forenoon, the afternoon, or mid-day, or an instant.  Virtuous ones speak of him as one and many.  Know him as time, the one who has everything under his subjugation.”  Where do you think this quote is from?  As is implicitly clear, this quote is about the supreme force, the brahman, in this particular case, being equated with Brahma.  You might be tempted to think of one of the Vedas, or the Upanishads.  The quote is actually from the Mahabharata, Chapter 1546(217) of the Critical Edition.
  

As I told you in the last blog, Bali had been dislodged from his prosperity and Indra had come to taunt him.  This bit, and there is much more, is what Bali taught Indra and this is nothing but Vedanta.  Here is something similar and this time, it is from Chapter 1544(215) and it is Prahrada speaking, under similar circumstances. “I know that everything has an end.  I have no sense of ownership.  I am without insolence.  I do not belong to this world.  I am free of all bonds.  I see that all beings have a beginning and an end and I am well. ..I do not see anyone who hates me.  Nor do I see anyone who is my own.”  Thus, asuras also possessed knowledge about the atman and the brahman.

In the Mahabharata, in the Moksha Dharma Parva, questions are raised about “sankhya” and “yoga”, 2 of the 6 darshanas (schools of philosophy) that existed.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty details, the point made there is that, unlike sankhya, yoga is a mode that is available to women.  Words of wisdom have come not only from asuras, but also women.  If I ask you about famous women sages, there are several you might mention, including Gargi, Maitreyi, Apala and Aditi.  I am not very sure you will mention Madalasa. You will find her story in the Markandeya Purana and I believe (I am not sure) a film was made about her in 1955.  

Unlike the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, there are no critical or authenticated versions of the Puranas and you will find many versions floating around.  Manmatha Nath Dutta was one of the early translators (into English) of several sacred texts and he also translated the Markandeya Purana in 1896.  There is a remarkable passage about Madalasa singing to her infant son, a kind of lullaby.  For the record, I decided to write about Madalasa, because Dr Madhu Teckchandani* asked me about the original source of the lullaby. Let me thus acknowledge that debt to her.

The Manmatha Nath Dutta translation isn’t particularly good.  Nevertheless, this is what you will find in Chapter 25 of his translation. “Thou art pure, O child, and without a name. It is by imagination that a name has been given to thee. This thy body, composed of five elements, is not thine. Nor dost thou belong to it. Wherefore dost thou weep? Or perhaps thou dost not weep - This is a self-produced sound coming out through the king's son. Various qualities, good or bad, relating to the elements, have been attributed to thy organs. In this world, beings, extremely feeble, acquire their growth by help of the elements, and taking meats and drinks; but thou hast no growth or decay. This body is a covering and it will be shattered and still thou will live on; therefore thou shouldst not yield to stupefaction in this body. It is by virtue of good and bad acts engendered by stupefaction, caused by pride and other passions that this covering of a body has been fixed on thee.”   Despite the translation not being that good, this is Vedanta again.

Madalasa finds a mention in Swami Vivekananda’s work, for example, in the lecture on Vedanta and its application to everyday life. “You have read in one of the Puranas that beautiful story of queen Madâlasâ, how as soon as she has a child she puts her baby with her own hands in the cradle, and how as the cradle rocks to and fro, she begins to sing, "Thou art the Pure One the Stainless, the Sinless, the Mighty One, the Great One." Ay, there is much in that.” Madalasa taught so much of Vedanta to her first three sons that they renounced everything.  She instructed the fourth son so that he might become a good king.  

As I have said, there are different Sanskrit versions of the Markandeya Purana. So the text may differ a little, depending on which version you have picked up.  But in general, you will find something like this. शुद्धो $सि बुद्धो $सि निरंजनो$सि संसारमायापरिवर्जितो$सि । संसारस्वप्नं त्यज मोहनिद्रां. I promised that these random thoughts would be about Hinduism.  But de facto, I seem to have a bias towards Vedanta.  However, I don’t think it is a bias.  I think principles of Vedanta run deep, across all varieties of Hinduism.



* You can follow Dr. Madhu Tekchandani on Twitter @msteckchandani 

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XIV

What’s the equivalent of demon?  Several words spring to mind – asura, daitya, danava, rakshasa, pishacha.  In our texts, these words are often used synonymously.  They shouldn’t be.  The meanings are quite different.  The sage Kashyapa was married to several of Daksha’s daughters.  Aditi, Diti, Danu were three of these.  Kashyapa and Aditi had the Adityas as their children, Kashyapa and Diti had the daityas, while Kashyapa and Danu had the danavas. Daityas and danavas on one side, and adityas as gods on the other, were cousins.  The gods were younger cousins. Asuras were antithesis of the gods, defined as suras.  Rakshasas represented almost a different kind of civilization and pishachas were flesh-eaters.  But forget that taxonomy about demons.  As I said, those terms were often used synonymously.  

“When it is time to sorrow, don’t grieve.  When it is time to be delighted, don’t be happy.  Forget the past and the future.  Be concerned only with the present.”  Who do you think said this?  You will probably think it is a subhashitam and indeed, there is a famous subhashitam that sounds similar.  If I add a few more quotes from the same passage, they will vaguely remind you of the Bhagavad Gita.  The quote I gave you is from the Mahabharata, from the Shanti Parva, from the Moksha Dharma section of the Shanti Parva.  Let me use the word asura as a general synonym for demons.  Not all asuras were bad.  As I told you, towards the end of the last blog, asuras like Bali, Namuchi and Prahlada/Prahrada were dislodged from their prosperity.  Indra went to visit them, expecting them to grieve and sorrow.  Instead, Indra found that they were cheerful enough and was puzzled.  The Mahabharata thus has extensive sections where these asuras teach Indra.

What is an asura?  In Buddhism, we have stories of Mara.  When Buddha meditated, Mara and/or his daughters came and tempted him.  When sages meditated, Indra would send celestial nymphs to dislodge them from their meditations.  Yogis and tantriks talk of demons that come and seduce them from their path to enlightenment.  I think these demons are no more than metaphors.  There was no asura whom the goddess killed.  We shouldn’t look at these asuras that way.  Just as the gods are inside us, the asuras are inside us too.  That’s what yoga, or any form of meditation, is trying to accomplish.  The intention is to get rid of attachment, get rid of vices like desire, anger, greed, delusion, ego and jealousy.  What will I obtain through the pursuit of dharma?  That’s probably the wrong question to ask.  Getting something comes later, losing something comes first.  I lose these vices, I lose these attachments, I lose these asuras.  What I then get is a proper sense of who I am.  That getting is hardly to be interpreted in the sense of material objects, riches, cars, passing in the exams, or whatever else it is that I am hankering for.  I have said it before, I dislike the word happiness.  I don’t know what it means.  Happiness is too often equated with these material objects. Once I have got what I am immediately hankering for, there is something else to be sought.  There is no end to that pursuit of happiness.  Instead, the pursuit of peace and tranquility is a more plausible one.

Our texts talk about the qualities or gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas.  Sattva is the quality of the good, rajas is the quality of passion and tamas is the quality of darkness.  The gods, not necessarily Indra, have qualities of sattva. The demons have the quality of tamas.  These qualities exist in us in different combinations.  For normal humans, it is rare to find someone completely devoid of tamas, certainly not of rajas.  With a complete absence of rajas, normal daily livelihood would be impossible.  But the point is simple enough, one of reducing tamas (and rajas) and increasing sattva.  I have now come to believe that there are some people who are good for us and some people who are bad for us.  In a man/woman kind of relationship, think of when you are in love.  Stating the obvious, that tends to bring out the best in us.  All too often, it does not last. 

 In a similar way, when our mind turns towards tamas, we seem to be attracted to such people and they are bad for us.  When our mind turns away from tamas, we seem to be attracted towards better people and they are good for us.  There are positive and negative feedback loops and synergies.  Have I said something very obvious?  I am not sure.  I am not talking about the very obvious recommendation of satsang, association with good and virtuous people.  I am talking about something that is a little more than that.  Obviously, association with good people tends to bring out the best in us, as long as it lasts for more than that temporary association.  I am making a slightly different point.  Our lives are rarely on a steady path.  There are ups and downs, there are cycles.  At some points, we are worse (in that sense of dharma) than at others.  Why does that happen?  In the broader scheme of things, that gets into questions of destiny.  What happens because of destiny?  What happens because of human action?  What happens because of pure chance, separate from preordained destiny and human action?  Not just Hinduism, but all kinds of sacred texts have grappled with this free will problem.  At some point, we need to revisit this again.  We need to talk about karma and what it means.

For the moment, let me make only one limited point about astrology.  In general, sticking to that framework of astrology and accepting it, I think we have the causation wrong.  I said, accepting that framework of the rashis/nakshatras for the moment.  It is not that those rashis/nakshatras influence our destiny and behavior.  There is a reason for being born, upliftment of the atman.  We accordingly choose a context for birth that is best suited for this and also choose an appropriate rashi/nakshtra.  It’s in that sense that the causation is the other way round.  I realize this is likely to start a debate.  So let me clarify.  This isn’t my view.  This is what I have gathered from reading some of our texts.  Incidentally, “Autobiography of a Yogi” also says something similar.

The Gerundive: अनीयर् तव्यत् (& य)

The gerundive in Sanskrit grammar is also called the prescriptive passive participle, and indicates something that should be done, or is worth doing. It has the force of the विधि लिङ् (optative mode) and is formed by adding the suffixes य, तव्य and अनीय​ to the root of the verbal action. 

Examples:

ज्ञा >>ज्ञेय to be known
पा >>पेय to be drunk
भू >>भव्य​ to be

भू >>भवितव्य to be, to happen
कृ >>कर्तव्य to be done
पठ् >>पठितव्य​ to be read/studied

कृ >>करणीय worth doing, to be done
पठ् >>पठनीय to be read 
पूज्  >>पूजनीय​ worthy of being worshiped

The meaning remains pretty much the same, though one root can have many gerundives:
कृ >>कृत्य, कार्य, कर्तव्य, करणीय

In terms of usage in a sentence, like the कर्मणि and भावे  prayoga, the कर्तृ or the 'doer' of the action​ is expressed in तृतीया or the instrumental case (though often it is found in षष्ठी or the genitive case e.g. सः मे मान्यः =he is respected by me.) However the participle/gerundive itself will be formed in two ways - depending on whether the verbal root is सकर्मक (transitive) अकर्मक (intransitive). Let is see how*.

सकर्मक (transitive)

Notice that the gerundive agrees with the कर्मन् (object) in gender, number and case. And that like the कर्मणि (passive) prayoga, the object is in the nominative, or प्रथमा vibhakti.

न केनपि ब्राह्मण: हन्तव्यः
A brahmin should not be killed by anyone
नारी अपि न कदापि हन्तव्या
A woman too is never to be killed

रामेण राज्यम् करणीयम्
RAma should rule the kingdom (राज्यम् nominative, neuter प्रथमा नपुंसक​)
मया पाठ: पठनीय​:
I should study this lesson

मया ग्रन्थः पठितव्य:
I should study this text (lit. this text is worthy of being studied by me)


अकर्मक (intransitive)

The gerundive of the intransitive is equivalent to भावे prayoga. So the कर्तृ doer is in तृतीया or the instrumental case or in षष्ठी or the genitive case. However since there is no कर्मन् (object) with which it has to agree (see above), it is nominative, singular, neuter प्रथमा एक नपुंसकलिन्ङ्ग.

अत्र मया स्थातव्यम्

Lit. It is to be stayed here by me = I ought to stay here. 
______________________________________________________
Note:
भू is used idiomatically sometimes in the sense of probability or likelihood. In which case, the subject and predicate will be in the same case:

तेन राज्ञा भवितव्यम्
(he must be/become king)
_______________________________________________________
*The formation is different for आत्मने पद​ verbs, but we'll deal with them in a separate write-up.
​

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XIII

Bibek Debroy challenges preconceived notions of what a mantra is and what it can do for you in this no punches pulled blog post of Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa. Do they need to be pronounced properly to be effective? Do you need to understand the meaning? What does the mantra do to your mind? How does it change you? Where does the word derive from etymologically - and what are the implications of that? Read on for a candid airing, and do share your views. You can leave a comment, or connect with Bibek on Twitter @bibekdebroy

ॐ जयन्ती मङ्गला काली भद्रकाली कपालिनी। दुर्गा क्षमा शिवा धात्री स्वाहा स्वधा नमोऽस्तुते॥  It’s that time of the year, when the goddess is worshipped in many parts.  We have a family friend, who has faced some personal problems.  She came to visit us recently and told us she went a met a “guru”.  The “guru” advised her to recite this “mantra” before she went to sleep and that the “mantra” was remarkably successful. 

I tend to think of any “guru” in the following way.  Suppose a student comes to me and wants a reading list in Economics.  Before I can give a reading list, I need to figure out how much the student knows, what his/her capacity is.  My “instructions”, so to speak, will be a function of that knowledge.  Whether it’s Economics, or whether it is spirituality and religion, that’s a good guru’s role.  Having said this, I was extremely puzzled by the guru’s choice of the mantra.  I don’t need to translate the shloka.  Those are different names for the goddess.  I am not even very sure the guru knows where this “mantra” is from.  It is something called the अर्गला स्तोत्रम्.  अर्गल or अर्गला is a bolt or latch on a door.  So this “mantra” is a bit like opening the bolt on the door.  It is not the main mantra.  You are supposed to move on to the main mantra.  Just so that you have the facts, this stotram is taken from something called “Durga Saptashati”, which is taken from something called “Chandi”, which is taken from the Markandeya Purana.  And though stated by the sage Markandeya, this stotram was composed by the sage Vishnu.

What’s my problem with this mantra?  The argala stotram has 25 shlokas.  And once the two preliminary shlokas are out of the way, there is the familiar and constant refrain, occurring in every shloka. रुपं देहि जयं देहि यशो देहि द्विषो जहि. “Give me beauty.  Give me victory.  Give me fame.  Slay my enemies.”  Give, give, give.  I don’t think this is especially conducive to peace and tranquility of mind.  If you ask for all those things and don’t get them, you are likely to be extremely miserable.  Right towards the end of the argala stotram, you also have पत्नीं मनोरमां देहि मनोवृत्तानुसारिणीम्.  Translated a bit loosely, “Give me a beautiful wife, whose conduct will be such as to follow my inclinations.”  Therefore, feminism apart, I am not even very sure a lady should be reciting this.  I told our friend to recite Adi Shankaracharya’s भवान्यष्टकम् instead, the one that has the refrain गतिस्त्वं गतिस्त्वं त्वमेका भवानि.  I am sure she won’t listen.  Why should she?  I am not a “guru” and she has found peace.  She goes to sleep easily.  The fact of the matter is that I think she would have gone to sleep even if she had recited “Baa Baa Black Sheep” 108 times instead.

There is a story about a holy man who came to a village.  An aged brahmana couple lived in that village and husband and wife kept on quarreling, as they had for decades.  There was poverty to reckon with.  Every morning, the husband would venture out, to work as a priest and find something to eat.  He would return in the evening, often with nothing.  And a quarrel would break out.  Finally, in desperation, the wife went to the holy man.  He gave her some magic water in a bottle and told her, as soon as she heard her husband’s footsteps in the evening, to put three drops of that magic water on her tongue and recite a mantra.  Lo and behold.  The quarrels stopped.  After a month, the magic water ran out and the wife went in haste to the holy man, to ask for some more.  The holy man refused.  There was no more magic water.  As you will have guessed, there was no magic in that water at all.  When the wife placed three drops of water on her tongue and recited a mantra, her instinctive angry words were checked.  

There is a Sanskrit verse that begins, अमन्त्रं अक्षरं नास्ति.  अक्षर can be both letter and syllable, the purport being that there is no letter/syllable that cannot be a mantra.  What does the word mantra mean?  Depending on what I do with the etymology, it means something that frees the mind (contrived from trayate), or something that is a tool (from tra) or instrument for focusing the mind.  Some mantras are believed to have special mystical properties.  Even if they do, and I have no particular view on that, this is presumably a function of correct pronunciation, which we rarely do.  For most of us, mantras, whether it is the gayatri mantra or the maha mrityunjay mantra or something else, the mantra is a tool and no more.  And thus, any letter or syllable is good enough.  However, I also think that before we recite a mantra, we should at least know the meaning, without necessarily being a Sanskrit pandit.

This time of the year is not only about the goddess, it is also about asuras.  Our sacred texts use the words asura, daita and danava synonymously.  Daityas are descended from Diti (married to the sage Kashyapa), danavas are descended from Danu (also married to the sage Kashyapa) and asuras are antitheses of suras or gods.  But let’s use the words synonymously.  Not all asuras were bad and some of them were deceived and lost their kingdoms and riches.  Did you know that Shanti Parva (the Moksha Dharma part) has instructions given by such asuras (Bali, Namuchi, Prahlada/Prahrada) to Indra?  Indra essentially wanted to laugh at these asuras, given their loss of prosperity and his gain of prosperity and kingdom.  He was extremely surprised to find that they were perfectly cheerful.  Next time, I will tell you a little bit about what these asuras told him.

Sanskrit Appreciation Hour on Twitter invites Guest Lecturers

Sanskrit Appreciation Hour has fast become the definitive platform to appreciate, learn and teach Sanskrit on Twitter. In just a year, the platform has attracted over 3,300 followers without any publicity or media coverage. Purely by word of mouth. 

Focusing exclusively on language learning, Sanskrit Hour aims to give a leg up to any one who wants to learn, or refresh their knowledge Sanskrit. It also helps aspiring teachers reach the largest Sanskrit focused audience on Twitter, which includes enthusiasts as well as experts. In the last couple of months, five outstanding Sanskritists have joined the teaching ranks, enriching the platform greatly. You too can be part of this process.

If you want to help people learn Sanskrit, you can volunteer to be a 'Guest Lecturer' and take a regular slot, or do it on an ad hoc basis. You are completely free to chose content but there are certain guidelines:

You must be able to answer grammatical and lexical queries to the satisfaction of the student 

Demonstrate an ability to be inclusive, and attract diverse audiences

Share material (text and tweets) with me at least 48 hours before the session

Follow pedagogic practices which are innate to Sanskrit Appreciation Hour. (However I'm open to suggestions to improve the platform)

NO political messages during the hour 

During the session, your personal beliefs remain exactly that - personal. Nothing must supersede teaching Sanskrit.

If you are interested, get in touch with me via my Twitter handle @RohiniBakshi or leave a comment on this blog with your Twitter handle or email address.

Thanks,

Rohini 

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XII

Dr. Bibek Debroy

Let me begin with two shlokas from the Bhagavad Gita again.  2.28 states, अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत​। अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना॥ “O descendant of the Bharata lineage!  A being is not manifest at the beginning and is manifest in the middle.  After death, the being is not manifest again.  What is there to sorrow about?” That’s the आत्मन्, which is not destroyed.  For the sake of completeness, let me mention the concept of लिङगशरीरम्, the subtle body.  Depending on the school of belief, this subtle body is a vehicle of consciousness, from one life to another, and is attached to the atman.  But for the moment, let us not complicate matters unnecessarily.  Here is the second shloka from Bhagavad Gita, 4.5. बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि तव चार्जुन। तान्य्हं वेद सर्वाणि न त्वं वेत्थ परंतप​॥  “O Arjuna!  Both you and I have passed through several lives.  O scorcher of enemies!  I know all of them, but you do not.”  That’s precisely the problem.  We don’t know.  We don’t remember.  Hence, we don’t realize why we have been born.

There is a friend of mine who is a senior bureaucrat.  He lives in one of the Delhi localities that is a “bureaucrat colony”, meaning that there are houses for senior civil servants there.  Recently, he related to me a trivial incident that shook him up and changed his life.  Right outside his quarters, there is a taxi stand.  He was returning home after a day of meetings.  It was just before lunch and he was hungry.  It was one of those hot Delhi days.  As he was about to walk in, he was stopped by one of those taxi drivers, tall, hefty and burly.  The taxi driver said, “Get me some water to drink.”  He wasn’t polite and my bureaucrat friend was annoyed.  “Am I your servant?” he retorted.  The taxi driver smiled and replied, “Someone who gives water to drink is God, not a servant.”  This shook up my friend.  He went to his house and got a bottle of water.  But the taxi driver said, “I don’t want it now.”  According to my friend, this changed his attitude towards life, forever. 

This was a relatively trivial incident.  My attitude changed because of an incident that was relatively less trivial.  So that you relate better, I am going to reveal an aspect of my life that is extremely personal.  Beyond the intimate, few people know about this.  In January 2004, I had a heart attack and am lucky to be alive today.  As I lay down on the operating table in Escorts, to use the clichéd expression, my entire life seemed to flash past me.  There were huge glass windows and I could see the sun shining on the green leaves outside.  Despite the searing pain inside, I could hear (or thought I could hear) the birds chirping outside.  “What have I done with my life?” I wondered.  If I survive and get out alive, no more of what I have been doing.  What’s this rat race?  Why am I in it?  What’s the purpose of publishing like mad?  Why and for whom?  “If I survive, in this calendar year, 2004, I will publish 12 books.  That’s it.  After that, I will only do what I wish to do.”  

That grueling publication schedule included both authored and edited books.  For the record, I actually did 15.  You will find them listed in my resume.  And you will also find, since 2005, publication has dried up, deliberately, unless I want to actually write something, not because someone else is asking me to.  Once I was back home, other than writing those books, I decided to paint the house.  Not get it painted mind you, paint it myself.  That gave me the opportunity to think and to reflect.  I am not going to bore you with further personal details.  The point is a simple one.  Why should one wait for shocks, trivial or non-trivial?  This is a question one should ask regardless.

Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887-1920) needs no introduction.  He was deeply religious and attributed all his inspiration to the family goddess Namagiri or Namakkal.  Ramanujan was no exception.  Many other geniuses have believed in the existence of a supreme force.  Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013) was a philosopher and law academic.  His last book, “Religion without God” will be published posthumously.  Here is a quote from that book. “The familiar stark divide between people of religion and without religion is too crude. Many millions of people who count themselves atheists have convictions and experiences very like and just as profound as those that believers count as religious. They say that though they do not believe in a “personal” god, they nevertheless believe in a “force” in the universe “greater than we are.” They feel an inescapable responsibility to live their lives well, with due respect for the lives of others; they take pride in a life they think well lived and suffer sometimes inconsolable regret at a life they think, in retrospect, wasted…But Einstein meant much more than that the universe is organized around fundamental physical laws; indeed his view I quoted is, in one important sense, an endorsement of the supernatural. The beauty and sublimity he said we could reach only as a feeble reflection are not part of nature; they are something beyond nature that cannot be grasped even by finally understanding the most fundamental of physical laws. It was Einstein’s faith that some transcendental and objective value permeates the universe, value that is neither a natural phenomenon nor a subjective reaction to natural phenomena. That is what led him to insist on his own religiosity. No other description, he thought, could better capture the character of his faith.” 

A Hindu may use slightly different words.  But will agree with the general thrust.  I have earlier said that words like देव, देवी, देवत, देवता mean “shining”.  By the way, देव and देवत are masculine and देवी and देवता are feminine.  If “god” is interpreted as these terms, how can I not believe in “god”?  There is “god” in you and in me.  There is divinity in each of us.  There is the brahman in each of us.  The purpose of life is to uplift the atman and realize this.  That’s the reason we are born.  That’s also the purpose of yoga, something I will leave for the next blog.