Sex as sacred in Hindu Scriptures via @nkgrock

In this article @nkgrock explores what Hindu scriptures and a variety of shastras have to say about the union between an man and a woman. He touches upon the ossified reactions some Western and Indian scholars, as well as of Hindu orthodoxy. In this well researched article, Nithin draws upon a variety of primary sources to explain his view of Sex as sacred. Posted on his blog http://nithinsridhar.blogspot.in/2014/03/sex-and-hinduism-revisited.html, it is being reproduced here so as to reach the readers of my blog.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Sex and Hinduism Revisited

_________________
Nithin Sridhar
______________

(This is a revised and enlarged version of 2008 article titled "Between Ears, Not Legs")

Her lap is a sacrificial altar; her hairs, the sacrificial grass; her skin, the soma-press. The two labia*(lips) of the vulva are the fire in the middle [Brhad-Âranyaka Upanisad, 6.4.3] (1)

This man (ama) am I; that woman (sâ), thou!
That woman, thou; this man am I!
I am the Sâman; thou, the Rig!
I am the heaven; thou, the earth!
Come, let us two together clasp!
Together let us semen mix,
A male, a son for to procure! [Brhad-Âranyaka Upanisad, 6.4.20]

Whenever the issue of love, nudity, sex and Hinduism comes into picture, we usually get to see one of the following reactionaries: (a) The West in general and its scholars studying South Asia [for example RISA(2)] in particular, and their Indian counterparts who consider Hinduism to be a mix of voodoo and pornography; or (b) The Hindu orthodoxy which thinks sex is taboo.

Now let's examine how valid these perspectives are.

Hindu Purusharthas:
Human life is considered to be the most advanced of all organisms. The importance of human life has been highlighted repeatedly by our various Acharyas. The difference between Humans and all other animals, birds or plants is the fact that humans have faculty of thinking, faculty of decision and discrimination (viveka), whereas the other animals live life according to their instinct inherent from birth. Hence, it is the ability to discriminate between merit and demerit, good and bad or right and wrong and to exert “Free-Will” to act accordingly is what makes a human life unique and precious. It is because of this ability a person is able to work himself to fulfill his desires and attain goals. These goals or “objectives of human life” are categorized under four headings and collectively termed as Purushartha. They are the canonical ends or aims that serve as pointers in life. The four Purusharthas from the lowest to the highest are: kama - pleasure or desire (3), artha - wealth, dharma - righteousness or morality and moksha - liberation from the cycle of rebirth, with dharma being placed first in the order and Moksha at the last signifying the fact that Dharma is the common element, a general frame-work, a medium through which one must attain kama, artha and moksha.

According to the Kamasutra, "In the beginning, the Lord of beings created men and women and, in the form of commandments in one hundred thousand chapters, laid down rules for regulating their existence with regard to dharma, artha, and kama."(4) Further, it says, "Man, the period of whose life is one hundred years, should practise dharma, artha and kama at different times and in such a manner that they may harmonise together and not clash in any way. He should acquire learning in his childhood, in his youth and middle age he should attend to artha and kama, and in his old age he should perform (Nivritti) dharma, and thus seek to gain moksha, i.e. release from further transmigration."(5)

Hence, in the Hindu scheme of things, even though enlightment is the ultimate goal of life, it encourages people to enjoy everything and fulfill all material desires but through rightful means. This it does because, Moksha is a long process and every person is not immediately qualified for it. Only a person who has become dispassionate and has overcome the internal enemies like desire, jealousy, anger, delusion, pride and greed is qualified to practice Moksha-Sadhana and attain Moksha. This is the path of renunciation. But, for those who still have desires for wealth and enjoyment, the path of householders is advised. This is the path in which kama and artha are fulfilled in a dharmic way such that there is neither suppression of desires nor reckless-gratification. A person who indulges only in gratification of his desires be it for wealth or for sex without caring for its righteousness or consequences will end of committing heinous actions like corruption or rape. Instead, the path of householders is a path by which, two people come together to practice dharma, kama and artha together.

It is this harmony of dharma, kama, artha and moksha that is also the foundation of less traversed but more maligned path- the path of the tantras. The tantras does not reject anything as taboo, but it seeks to accept the human desires and passions including the bestial tendencies for what they are and then use them to rise above them. This it does in variety of ways that are suitable for people with different temperaments and competencies.

Hence, a person who wants to overcome his sexual desires can do so by practicing the duties of householder with restraint of his senses. Through this practice of restraining senses called as “Indriya Nigraha”, he would slowly become detached and dispassionate. Or such a person may instead use sex as a tool, as a medium of worship, which would result in satiation of his sexual desires and at the same time making way for spiritual upliftment.

Sex as Yajna:
Yajna or sacrifice is derived from the root, yaj. It means "worship" or "the offering of oblation". Max Müller defines yajna as "an act by which we surrender something for the sake of gods"(6). Sex is worship, a sacrifice. It is an act by which the partners involved surrender their ego in order to gain pleasure, progeny and, eventually, even enlightment.

Brhad-Âranyaka Upanisad  says “Her lap is a sacrificial altar; her hair the sacrificial grass; her skin the soma-press. The two labia of the vulva are the fire in the middle. Verily, indeed, as great as is the world of him who sacrifices with the Vâjapeya ["Strength-libation", libation is an act of pouring a liquid as a sacrifice (as to a deity)] sacrifice, so great is the world of him who practices sexual intercourse"

These verses clearly show that sex is to be treated as a form of worship, an act to not only to gain pleasure, but also as a sacred act for obtaining progeny (a householder’s duty prescribed by scripture) and spiritual upliftment.

Sex as Meditation:
In Vijnana Bhairava Tantra, during a conversation between Shiva and Shakti, Devi asks: "O Shiva, what is your reality?/ What is this wonder-filled universe?/ What constitutes seed?/ Who center’s the universal wheel?/ What is this life beyond the form pervading forms?/ How may we enter it fully,/ above space and time,/ names and descriptions?/ Let my doubts be cleared!"

Shiva explains her 112 methods of meditation to attain enlightment which includes few sexual meditations. He says: "At the start of sexual union/ Keep attentive on the fire in the beginning,/ And so continuing,/ Avoid the embers in the end./ When in such embrace your senses are shaken as leaves,/ Enter this shaking./ Even remembering union,/ Without the embrace."

These verses clearly indicate how the sexual act can be utilized for achieving enlightment. There are certain tantric sadhanas called as “Lata Sadhanas”, wherein partners identify themselves with Bhairava-Bhairavi and use sexual union to attain Samadhi. Samadhi is a state where the ego vanishes. In a sexual act, too, when the two partners unite together, when their passions reach their peak, for very brief moments, they both will experience a state of non-ego. If, this state can be harnessed and lengthened, then it can lead one to Samadhi.

But, this does not mean that every person who indulges in sex is a yogi. Kularnava Tantra clearly says- “Beguiled by false knowledge as propagated, certain persons, deprived of the guru-shishya tradition, imagine the nature of the Kuladharma according to their own intellect. If merely by drinking wine, men were to attain fulfillment, all addicted to liquor would reach perfection. If mere partaking of flesh were to lead to the high state, all the carnivores in the world would become eligible to immense merit. If liberation were to be ensured by sexual intercourse with a Shakti, all creatures would become liberated by female companionship (7)”.  Hence, every sexual encounter does not lead to Samadhi. Sexual recklessness does not lead to Spiritual progress. But, when a Sexual act is treated as worship, as a meditation and the act is used to still the mind and withdraw the senses, one attains dynamic equilibrium. This dynamic stillness when harnessed will in turn lead to Samadhi. A normal sexual encounter ends when the partners climax and the male ejaculates. But, in a Lata-Sadhana, there is no ejaculation. When, the partners reach the state of highest passion, they instead enter into a state of Samadhi. This is in fact very difficult to achieve for most people. Only a few have competency to practice them. It is the ignorance of such nuances that has led to misunderstanding of tantras.

Kamashastra:
It is the study of 64 arts(8) like singing, playing musical instruments, dancing, union of dancing, singing, and playing instrumental music, writing and drawing, tattooing, etc. The "art of lovemaking" is only a part of this shastra (discipline). Hence, the attempt of modern scholarship to reduce the whole discipline of Kama that deals with love, sex, marriage, arts and music to only a manual of sexual gymnastics speaks volume about the state of scholarship present in India and the West. This also strengthens the speculations that the scholars who study Hinduism selectively highlight some aspects that suit their agenda and ignore the rest.

Sex education:
This branch of education has been featured throughout the Hindu history. Vatsyayana says, both men and women should learn the Kamashastra(9).

Pre-marital sex and love marriages:
In Hindu society sex was always considered a matter of individual choice. There are many such instances in our history. Scriptures too depict pre-marital sex and love marriages. So, complaining that they are "anti-Hindu" is ill-informed. The Manusmriti recognizes eight kinds of marriages of which "gandharva marriage" is one. It is a voluntary union of a maiden and her lover, which arises from desire and sexual intercourse for its purpose (10). A caveat needs to be added here. The support of scriptures for Love marriages or by extension for pre-marital sex between lovers who eventually marry should not be considered as a support for recent practices of sexual recklessness like one-night stands that has no element of love. The practices of dating multiple people for sex, or visiting prostitutes or one night stands are indeed considered as sexual recklessness and hence are against the basic tenet of Dharma- the Indriya Nigraha. Such actions are considered as transgressions of Dharma. The same is the case of extra-marital affair. It is considered as a sin (11), an adharma because it involves cheating.

If, it be said that, the issue of sex and affair are personal issues and it is wrong for religion to interfere in it, the answer is that Hinduism is not interfering in anybody’s life. It only teaches people to discriminate between Dharma and Adharma, the actions that are right and bring happiness and those actions that are wrong and results in sorrow. But, every person has a free-will to act, to take decisions, to make choices. This freedom to exert free-will was always present in Hindu society and is the very core of human life.

Is Hinduism pornography and tantra a sex manual?
 The straight answer is a simple "no".

The word "Tantra" actually refers to a vast body of literature called the "Agamas" which are practical manuals for meditation. There are many Shaiva, Shakta, Pancharatra Agamas. Using sex for meditation is prescribed in only a few of the many different paths described in the Agamas. The aim here was to turn a sexual union into a meditation, a spiritual union that would ultimately result in Samadhi and not sexual gratification. It is Victorian puritanical authoritarianism which condemns any mention or depiction of sex.

Hinduism on the other hand, recognizes the role of sexual desires in human lives. The sexual depictions in some of the temples were meant to not only educate the people about role sex in householder’s life, but also to help those who were involved in sexual sadhanas (penance) for enlightment. Such, depictions has great value not only for their artistic beauty but also for spiritual significance. There is a difference between nudity, expression of beauty and pornography. What appears in the Hindu Puranas and Itihasas are expressions of genuine beauty and deep philosophy and not pornography as imagined by modern academics.

Hence, sex is neither a taboo nor pornography in Hinduism. Instead it is recognized as a very basic block of life, which must be harnessed in a proper way so that it would lead to both sensual happiness and spiritual fulfillment.

References & Notes:

1 The verses are taken from chapter titled "Incantations and ceremonies for procreation"

2 Religions In South Asia (RISA), a department under the American Academy of Religion (AAR), has been sponsoring studies for years now to deride Hinduism. The Gods and Goddess like Ganesha, KaLi, and saints like Ramakrishna etc. have come under much distasteful sexual connotation and nauseating voyeurism that one begins to wonder if it can at all be called academics. Also read RISA LILA by Rajiv Malhotra- http://creative.sulekha.com/risa-lila-1-wendy-s-child-syndrome_103338_blog

3 Kama in general means material desires and pleasures: physical, emotional, sexual and psychological. According to the Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana: "Kama is the enjoyment of appropriate objects by the five senses of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting and smelling, assisted by the mind together with the soul. The ingredient in this is a peculiar contact between the organ of sense and its object, and the consciousness of pleasure which arises from that contact is called Kama." Part 1, Chapter 2: On the acquisitions of Dharma, Artha and Kama. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton,

4 Part 1,Chapter 1:Preface, The Kama Sutra of Vatsayayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton.

5 Part 1, Chapter 2: On the acquisitions of Dharma, Artha and Kama. The Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton,

6 Max Müller's Sacred Books of East series (SBE 30), p 315.- http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe30/sbe30119.htm#page_315

7 Kularnava Tantra 2.116-118

8 Part 1, Chapter 3: On the Study of the Sixty-Four Arts, The Kama Sutra of Vatsayayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton

9 MAN should study the Kama Sutra and the arts and sciences subordinate thereto, in addition to the study of the arts and sciences contained in Dharma and Artha. Even young maids should study this Kama Sutra along with its arts and sciences before marriage, and after it they should continue to do so with the consent of their husbands. Part 1, Chapter 3: On the Study of the Sixty-Four Arts, The Kama Sutra of Vatsayayana, Translated by Sir Richard Burton.

10 Manu Smriti 3.32

11 Manu Smriti 12.7

Hanuman shloka

On special request from @gopigothere :

मनोजवम् मरुत तुल्य वेगम्
जितेन्द्रियम् बुद्धिमताम् वरिष्ठम्
वातात्मजम् वानर यूथ मुख्यम्
श्रिराम दूतम् शिरसा नमामि

मनोजवम् - one with the agility/speed of the mind
मरुत तुल्य वेगम् - one who has speed equal to the Wind-god
जितेन्द्रियम् - master of his senses
बुद्धिमताम् वरिष्ठम् - the best among the wise
वातात्मजम् - son of the Wind-god
वानर यूथ मुख्यम् - leader of the crowd/regiment of monkeys (vaanarasena)
श्रिराम दूतम् - the emissary of Shree Rama
शिरसा नमामि - I bow with the head

In some versions the last line instead of शिरसा नमामि  is शरणम् प्रपद्ये - I seek refuge in...that Hanuman who is - - -(as above)

The role of music in the Guru Granth Sahib

Guru Nanak composing Gurbani, accompanied by Bhai Mardana on the rabaab

An article I wrote in 1990, which was published in the Artscape page of the Economic Times. That page has long been discontinued, but thoughts of this article remained with me. I'm eternally grateful to Angad Chowdhry (@angadc) for preserving it, and sending it to me on the occasion of bara maha, the start of the Sikh calendar year. Regular followers of this blog will be amused by the spelling of non English words and lack of transliteration! I'd like to dedicate this re-posting to the memory of my father in law, who was a devout Sikh and not just guided me in my preparation for this article, but also and fired my passion and respect for Sikhism.

'Chal Mardanya Ched Rabaab, Dhur ki Bani Aaiyee' (Mardana, play your Rabaab, the Divine Voice descends): Guru Nanak

The singing of hymns from the Guru Granth Sahib (Kirtan) is an intrinsic part of the Sikh faith. Be it holy days, a birth, a death, a wedding, the Sikh holy book has appropriate 'shabads' for all occasions. 'Kalyug Mein Kirtan Pardhana' (Guru Arjan Dev - Raag Maaru) It is not just in 'Kalyug' that kirtan helps attain salvation. Music as a vehicle to attain communion with the Almighty was not new even at the dawn of Sikhism. The spiritual renaissance of the 14th century led to the 'bhajan' form of devotion. Bhaktas, Sufi saints and even seats of Sanatan Dharam like Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi had begun to focus on music as a means to realise the Supreme Being.

Starting with Guru Nanak, all the Sikh gurus were well versed in music and propagated the singing of Gurbani (hymns of the gurus) in professional Kirtaniyas. Raagis and Dhadis sang to the accompaniment of Rabaabs, Sirandas, Taaus, and Tanpuras, Mridangas and the Pakhawaj in Guru Darbars. Guru Nanak's dependence on the strains of his Muslim companion Mardana's rabaab (Rebeck) is considered to be the beginning of the relationship between music and Guru poetry. And the significance of Kirtan in Sikhism, is that it alone can help a human being to attain Brahma. Guru Arjan Dev says in Raag Kaanra 'Keerat Prabh Ke Gaau.... 'Oh my tongue, do thou sing the glory of the Lord and the saint, this alone shall lead thee to the Lord's feet.'

The central role that the Sikh Gurus assigned to music made the Sikh scriptures and Sikh worship unique. Except for the first 13 pages, the holy book is divided into 31 musical measures (Raags). Guru Arjan Dev compiled the hymns of the first four gurus  to these Raags. Poetry was of the highest order and the writings were structured and accented so as to make any alteration difficult without going against its rhythm and musical setting. These hymns, along with the vast contribution of Guru Arjan Dev are called the Adi Granth. To this, Guru Gobind Singh added his own hymns and those of his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, creating the holy book of Sikhism, the Guru Granth Sahib. Unique in it's musical setting, the other outstanding feature of the Guru Granth Sahib is the inclusion of the hymns of Muslim and Hindu saints. The Bhagat Banis of Farid, Kabir, Namdev and Ravidas make the Granth the only religious scriptures to include the writings of people belonging to other religions.

The intention was to inculcate a balanced outlook in the Sangats (congregations). The choice of Raags and placement of the hymns was clearly aimed at this. Those raags arousing extreme passion of any kind were omitted. Megh and Hindol were too jubilant, while Jog and Dipak were rejected for being too melancholy. In Gurbani, not only Raag ras, but other properties like bhav, and dhyan are adhered to for the presentation of 'shabads'. Raags were used in their pure form, as well as along with shades of other raags. For instance, Raag Gauri could be sung on its own, or as Gauri-Purabi, Gauri-Dipaki, or Gauri-Purabi-Dipaki.

The use of southern varieties of Raags like Vadhans, Ramkali, Maru and Prabhati are a distinct feature of Gurbani. Desi Raags based on folk music are another unique feature. Asa, Majh, Bihagra, Suhi and Tilang are some examples. Singing the glory of the Lord in a Raag was likened to a light that could penetrate the hardest of hearts. At the same time, the Granth is firm in instructing that the Holy Word and not music should pre-dominate. Says Khuswant Singh, "The singers were to avoid the expositions of the intricacies of Raags, and to sing Shabads in a way that the meaning of the word was conveyed to the listener.'

This dichotomy has resulted in two distinct musical styles for the presentation of Gurbani. The classical and the day to day kirtan which takes the form of congregational singing. The first, 'Shabad Reets' consist of hymns in Dhrupad-Dhamar or Khayal. These are rendered in select taals like Jhaptal, Chancal and Arachutal, Chautal and Soolaphakta. In fact it is in fact argued that Gurbani is a distinctive musical discipline. Says Dr. Ajit Singh Paintal of Delhi University "A peculiar style has been adopted by Raagis. Full throated, powerful singing embellised by murki, gamak, and sapat distinguish it from any other." A similar peculiarity is the way Raagis play the table. Though the pakhawaj is no longer used, they have adapted the pakhawaj style ( khule-haath-ke-bol).

The second method, Jyotian de Shabad, based on folk music (dharnas and vars) rely on simple notes, standardised over centuries of use. They can be picked up easily by the lay congregation in no time. Sometimes the sthai (ra-hau-di-tuk) of the shabad is sung by the congregation (sangat) while the Raagi-Jatha sings the verses imparting shades of the appropriate Raag. While Jyotian-de-Shabad are respected as proud descendents of a rich folk tradition, the drift away from Raags causes considerable concern among purists. In particular, traditionalists like Singh Bandhu disapprove of the use of 'filmi' music for Shabad compositions. While they agree that the music should not supersede the Holy word, lightness and frivolity is not the route to salvation. Singh bandhu point out "The scriptures can even be recited or chanted for spiritual bliss. They don't have to be sung. So some discipline is called for in the tradition of the reets when shabads are sung."

Today, there is a move to return back to the rich musical tradition of Gurbani. To extern the frivolous, the filmi. Efforts are being made to encourage the Raags and ' Reeetan' of Gurmat Sangeet . Suggestions include schools for young aspirants and refresher courses for Raagis. Singh Bandhu conclude, "Music is an exacting art. It demands devotion, mental discipline and creativity. But the rich music and poetry on Gurbani cannot but enthuse 'sangats', and help them commune with God." Which was the intention of the Gurus, and which is why the Guru Granth Sahib is structured the way it is.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XIX

Dr. Bibek Debroy

Who were the sons of Krishna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa?  Most people will mention Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura.  However, Vedavyasa also had another son named Shuka.  The word शुक means parrot and there is a story about how Shuka came to have that name.  One wonders about Shuka, because the stories aren’t consistent.  There is a very attractive story in the Mahabharata about Shuka obtaining moksha.  The words निवृत्ति (nivritti) and प्रवृत्ति(pravritti) can’t be translated very well.  Nivritti means cessation, inactivity, abstinence, abstention.  Pravritti means application, exertion.  But in the tension between nivritti and pravritti, what is really meant by pravritti is engaging in deeds, ceremonies, rites, sacrifices, even if one is not attached to the fruits.  Nivritti means withdrawal from all these. Pravritti leads to fruits - dharma, artha, kama, even heaven.  However, all fruits, even heaven, are temporary.  Once those fruits are exhausted, one is dislodged and gets back to the cycle of life, birth and death, samsara.  Beyond a point, quibbling about semantics is futile.  Having said that, since pravritti doesn’t lead to true moksha and fruits of pravritti are transient, perhaps one should resort to nivritti, renunciation from everything.  Let’s not start a debate on this here. In the Mahabharata, even the gods and the rishis were confused about this.  If nivritti was desirable, why was the path of pravritti recommended?  They went to Narayana for an explanation and that answer can wait, for the moment.

To return to Shuka, he desired moksha and went in search of it.  His father, Vedavyasa, called him and asked him to stay, at least for one night, but Shuka didn’t listen.  He left for the Himalayas.  While there, he passed the river Mandakini and there were naked apsaras bathing there.  However, though they saw Shuka pass, they realized he had conquered all desire and were not ashamed.  Eventually, Shuka merged himself into nature there, into the mountains, the rivers, the lakes and the trees.  He became one with them.  He knew that his father would come after him.  He told the mountains and the caverns that when his father came after him and called out to him, they should answer on his behalf. That is the reason we still hear an echo resound in mountains and valleys.  When we call out, they are answering, on behalf of Shuka.  When Vedavyasa followed, the naked apsaras saw him and scrambled to cover themselves.  They hid in the water and rushed to grab their garments.  They knew that Vedavyasa had still not conquered his desire. Vedavyasa was both delighted and ashamed.  He was delighted because his son had conquered desire and obtained emancipation, but he was ashamed on his own account.  I said the stories about Shuka are not very consistent.  If he disappeared in this way, how could he have recited the Bhagavata Purana to King Parikshit?  There is a further complication in the Devi Bhagavata Purana, where Shuka actually marries and has children, before taking to a life of renunciation.

The point I want to flag is being “selfish”.  Selfish is a nasty word, with negative connotations.  But surely the question is, what I am being selfish about?  Being selfish about dharma, artha and kama is somewhat different from being selfish about moksha.  When Vedavyasa asked Shuka not to go and Shuka didn’t listen, he was being selfish in a positive sense.  There was an interaction between Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna.  This is reported in a letter written by Swami Vivekananda to Pramadadas Mitra in 1890 and Swami Nikhilananda’s “The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna”.  There is a slight difference in nuance between what the letter and the book say.  But the substance is something like this.  Swami Vivekananda wished to be perpetually immersed in samadhi and Sri Ramakrishna rebuked him for his “selfishness”.  

Had Swami Vivekananda remained interested in his own spiritual upliftment alone, the rest of the world would certainly have lost out.  I recently met a Buddhist scholar.  He told me that there was a new biography of Gautama Buddha.  As all of us know, Prince Siddhartha was married to Yashodhara and had a son named Rahula.  At the age of 29, he left in search of enlightenment.  This seems unfair to the wife.  According to this new biography, and I am no Buddhist scholar, before departing Prince Siddhartha took Yashodhara’s permission.  I don’t see how this makes much difference.  It was no different for Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.  His first wife died early.  But when he decided to opt for sannyasa at the age of 24, the historical records tell us that his mother and second wife, Vishnupriya, were miserable.  Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did console his mother.  However, I haven’t read anything that describes any such conversation he had with Vishnupriya.  For Adi Shankaracharya too, there is a story about his mother objecting to his taking sannyasa and accepting it when he was seized by a crocodile.

पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्म​.  I do not have a father.  I do not have a mother.  I do not have a birth.  That is Adi Shankaracharya in Atma-Shatakam or Nirvana-Shatakam.  That’s Vedanta and we know about the bonds of relationships becoming transitory and irrelevant.  But it seems to me that the struggle for moksha also requires an extremely high degree of selfishness in the positive sense, discarding the negative and obvious nuances of selfishness.  I have tried to think of all the possible Sanskrit words for selfishness.  With the exception of केवल, I can’t think of a single one that doesn’t have that negative nuance.  But if moksha is about the self, we do need to be selfish.  We discard associations with the external world, immerse ourselves in the self and then, in a completely different kind of way, engage again with the external world.

On translation, and the case for learning Sanskrit.

To the followers of #SanskritAppreciationHour and the readers of my blog, this piece will come as no surprise. It's something I've expressed myself very often  about on Twitter. Yet, speaking to Advaita Kala made me realise the need to bring all my stray references together. The perils of translation across cultures are a matter of record. The title of Umberto Eco's scholarly and highly engaging book 'Mouse or Rat'¹ says it all. A man called मूषक​ in a Sanskrit text (for whatever reason, maybe it's a Hitopadeśa like story!), would come across to the reader of the English translation very differently depending on whether he’s called Mr. Mouse or Mr. Rat. So the Italian saying 'traduttore, tradittore' (translator, traitor) is not without cause. Yet we’ve translated probably from the day language began to communicate with people outside our speech community. There have always been good/ bad/ reliable/ offensive/ terrible/ obnoxious/ excellent/ mediocre translations, and that description depends as much on the translator as it does on the reader who receives the translation.

I'm inclined to agree with Patrick Olivelle, who says every act of translation is an act of interpretation. And in my experience that interpretation depends on one’s world view (Weltanschauung) and the narrative one is comfortable with. Even on #SanskritAppreciationHour, not a session passes without some participant tweeting - 'I prefer this translation (of say, dharma) to the one you've chosen'. Now if you're reading a play or a poem, it doesn't matter that much if you translate काषाय​ as red or saffron or ochre. But when it comes to religious texts the story is completely different. If you don't learn Sanskrit, professors at my college will tell you that you have to read at least four English translation to get even close to the meaning of the Sanskrit. So if you’re interested in reading religious texts, the case for learning Sanskrit is a no-brainer really!

Sanskrit words have wide semantic fields, and can consequently be translated in many ways into English. Let's look at some examples. Last week I translated kālabhairavāṣṭakam on #SanskritAppreciationHour, and the word bhīma I took as formidable, because of my personal bhakti to Śiva. I could not conceive of him as being dreadful, terrible, and frightening, which were other options available to me. It took a participant sending me this picture to make me reconsider my translation.

Everyone does this whether they admit it to themselves or not. Let’s look at some other examples that have been in the news recently. Doniger translates kāmasakta (to describe Daśaratha in the Rāmāyaṇa) as ‘hopelessly attached to lust’ (verily, a sex addict). Were I to do so, I might have said something like ‘attached to sensual pleasures.’² Sakta from √सञ्ज् meaning to cling, to adhere, to stick. From the same root we get सक्तु so called because of its stickiness. And kāma hardly needs translation, but still, for the record can be interpreted as desire, love, longing, sensuality, erotic or sexual love, wish, affection, pleasure and much more. So Doniger with her world view interprets it as lust, whereas another person with a different worldview would not.

Let’s come to another example. During their interview, Dinanath Batra told Advaita that गो means इन्द्रिय​ rather than cow³. He’s absolutely right. It does mean इन्द्रिय​ (organ). But it also means cow, which is why we understand Gopāla to mean protector of cows, and Govinda to mean the one who finds the cows, but also the one who pleases the senses. Clearly गो  doesn’t just mean इन्द्रिय​.⁴ A classic polyvalent Sanskrit word, गो can mean cow, light, a region of the sky, number nine, mother, water, earth, speech, organ and much more. A lot depends also on context. If I saw गो in a yoga text talking about karmendriyāṇi I would know that it means an organ of action. But if I saw it in a śrauta or gṛhya text, it would mean cow.   

Translation is tricky business. Translators are often regarded with scepticism and distrust. And their antecedents alone are often cause to reject their work outright. I’m not here to preach, but seing as it's my blog, I will share my personal view! So long as I know where the translator is coming from, and what filters he/she is likely to apply to the text, I factor that in, and read accordingly. For instance, D.N Jha and Jaidayal Dalmia (Gita Press Gorakhpur)⁵ stand at opposite poles on the issue of animal sacrifice in Vedic texts. In this case it is not just translation of individual words like go-ghna, but also selective quoting from ancient scriptures to build their respective and mutually exclusive narratives. I would reject neither, read both, and make my way to the original texts to check out the veracity of the references, and assess their translations based on my knowledge of Sanskrit. But to empower yourself this way, it is essential that you learn Sanskrit. Otherwise you'll always be at the mercy of a translator/traitor!

¹ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mouse-Rat-Translation-as-Negotiation/dp/0753817985

² http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262511

³http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/meeting-the-book-ban-man-advaita-kala-wendy-doniger/1/346242.html

⁴ Meanings of Sanskrit words have been taken from the following dictionaries:

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/apte/

http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/monier/

http://spokensanskrit.de/

⁵ http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Holy-Cow-Jha/dp/B00DPOQAKW

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Review_of_beef_in_ancient_India.html?id=1wYaAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

  

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVIII

Dr. Bibek Debroy

The word अवतार​ is translated as incarnation or descent.  It comes from the word अवतर​ण (अव√तॄ) meaning descent or coming down.  प्रलयपयोधिजले धृतवानसि वेदम्। विहितवहित्रचरित्रमखेदम्॥ केशव धृतमीनसशरीर जय जगदीश हरे॥ Many of us have heard this.  We need not necessarily know where it is from.  It is actually from Jayadeva’s “Gitagovindam” and is the first song (“gitam”), number 1.2 of the composition. The entire text is beautiful poetry and so is this song.  That’s the reason it is sung so often.  It is also known as the “Dashavatara strotam”, pinning down the number of “avatara”-s as ten.  These are Vishnu’s incarnations.  

Except in some very rare cases, Shiva doesn’t have incarnations.  Most people tend to assume Vishnu has 10 incarnations.  That’s by and large true.  However, there are also occasions where 24 or 12 incarnations are mentioned.  Most people also tend to assume they know the names of the 10 incarnations and they are (1) Matysa; (2) Kurma; (3) Varaha; (4) Narasimha; (5) Vamana; (6) Parashurama; (7) Rama; (8) Krishna; (9) Buddha; and (10) Kalki, with Kalki to come in the future.  It isn’t always that consistent.  Sometimes, (9) Buddha is replaced by Balarama.  In Jayadeva, the list is (I am using the names used by Jayadeva and not replacing the words with more common synonyms) (1) Meena; (2) Kacchapa; (3) Sukara; (4) Narahari; (5) Vamana; (6) Bhrigupati; (7) Rama; (8) Haladhara; (9) Buddha; and (10) Kalki. Do I need to translate the shloka I quoted?  I guess not.  Except to say that “vahitra” means boat and “vihita” means arranged or contrived.  You arranged the Vedas through your character, which is like a boat in the waters of destruction, and held them up in the form of a fish.  That’s a loose kind of translation.

The following, from BG 4.7, is far more famous than Jayadeva and needs no translation whatsoever. यदा यद हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत​। अभ्युत्थानधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॥  The presumption is that when adharma raises its ugly head, Vishnu creates himself in the form of an incarnation, to destroy adharma and establish dharma.  The progressive transition of those 10 incarnations through an evolutionary process has often been commented upon, from a fish to a tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf and then man.  But think of the stories connected with those incarnations.  In what form where they adharma?  The fish saved Manu from a flood.  Unless that saving is interpreted as an instance of dharma, what was the adharma there?  

The tortoise was relevant for the churning of the ocean.  The gods were related to the asuras, they had the same father, though different mothers.  Indeed, in distributing the amrita, a deception was practiced on the demons.  Unless one accepts the premise that all asuras are necessarily bad, there was no obvious act of adharma.  Hiranyaksha stole the earth and the boar killed him.  Ditto for Hiranyaksha’s elder brother, Hiranyakashipu, and the Narasimha incarnation.  Beyond oppressing the gods and sometimes dislodging them from heaven, it is difficult to make out a case for adharma.  Vamana and Bali are an even stronger example.  There is nothing to suggest that Bali was bad in any sense and his generosity was taken advantage of.  Sure, a single kshatriya, Kartavirya Arjuna, caused offence.  However, did that constitute enough adharma for Parashurama to exterminate kshatriyas 21 times?  An individual’s act of transgression led to extermination of the collective varna.  I can extend the argument for Rama, Krishna and Balarama/Buddha.  The case for establishing “dharma”, however defined, and destroying “adharma”, however defined, is not that strong.  At best, that BG 4.7 can be applied to Rama and Krishna.

Notice that none of the incarnations, so far, have been brahmanas.  Parashurama may have been born as one.  But de facto, he was more like a kshatriya and there is a story about why he behaved that way, connected with his birth.  The incarnations have all involved violence, the way of a kshatriya, not that of a brahmana.  There is a shloka that was composed by Swami Vivekananda in honour of Shri Ramakrishna and it is as follows. स्थापकाय च धर्मस्य सर्वधर्मस्वरुपिणे। अवतारवरिष्ठाय रामाकृष्णाय ते नमः॥  It needs no translation. It is obvious enough.  This is also a different kind of establishment of dharma, and there is a reference to Shri Ramakrishna as an “avatara”.  This kind of establishment of “dharma” is the brahmana mode.  There were duties meant for brahmanas and there were duties meant for kshatriyas.  I am using the word duty, because this is not “dharma” in the sense of “moksha dharma” and emancipation.  It is more “dharma” in the sense of good conduct.  

For example, brahmanas are meant to study, teach, perform sacrifices, officiate at the sacrifices, receive gifts and give gifts. That is good conduct for a brahmana.  For a kshatriya, included in that good conduct is chastisement and reward, chastisement of those who are wicked and reward of those who are good.  That’s more like rule of law.  BG 4.7 is about rule of law.  It is not about “dharma” in its broader sense of emancipation.  As I have said before, “dharma” in the sense of emancipation is about what is inside you.  Rule of law is about the external world.  It shouldn’t be surprising that none of the incarnations have been brahmanas.  What of Kalki, yet to come?  I am not sure how to describe Kalki.  He is a bit like Parashurama.  He will clearly be born in a brahmana household, so the Puranas tell us.  But riding on a white horse and with a blazing sword in his hand, his behaviour will be like that of a kshatriya.  If you read about what he will do, especially in the Kalki Purana, it is the spread of dharma through the sword.

There are nuances in dharma. And all I wanted to point out was that “dharma” in connection with the incarnations is a very specific kind of interpretation.

Prakriti: What is "the truth"?

Please welcome guest writer* Rishi Raj Manglesh, a Senior IT Consultant in the Nordic region. He has a keen interest in Indian studies and is happy to give his perspective on almost everything if it helps... Today he shares his views about the concept of 'satya' often translated into English as 'truth'. But is it as unidimensional as that? Read on to find out. A bit of thinker Rishi Raj enjoy tackling serious questions, so please connect with him for via his twitter handle @rmanglesh

When we try to understand Truth or "Satya", derived from the Sanskrit word Sat, it means that which always exists, unchangeable and consistent. What would it actually mean?

It would mean that truth is the same for me, you and everyone else. Moreover it would also be the same in the past, present and future as well. It is static and also called as Absolute or Eternal truth which doesn't change with time.

But due to limitation of expression and inability to know all at once, we might require a different versions of truth which suits to our context to understand the absolute truth. Such a dynamic narrative which evolves with our spiritual development may be/could be or can be different to me, you or anybody else. Such a truth which is not static but expresses absolute truth can be called Relative truth which changes with time.

------------------

Why truth is so essential to know?

Because it is part of our existence. Our physical being along with the narrative of relative and absolute truth put together is our existence actually. "Our being" is not just physical manifestation but also an attribute of several qualities due to our life situation and original nature - known as Prakrti.

Relative truth is the illusion (maya) which is rajasic in nature. The absolute truth is playground of existence which is sattvik in nature whereas physical being is a manifestation of tamasic energy.

We can hopefully go further into the details of gunas in future but perhaps it is enough to understand now that our existence has three main pillars: ourself, illusion which exists temporarily and absolute truth or very fine balance between our self and real nature.

------------------

How does relative truth manifest itself in our life?

The relative truth is rajasic thus creative and related to the creator thus our self.

Therefore my illusions are just mine. My perception of self, others, family, society and future goals, ambitions makes my world and my world is always different then someone else world.

To realize the illusion or our own world, the GOAL of life is education. Education will give individual enough skills, abilities and knowledge to achieve our world.

--------------------

How absolute truth manifests in our life?

This is sattvik and always perfectly balanced thus providing stability to continue our existence. It is a link of our prakrti to eternal prakrti. This is not about an individual world but a shared world. To live in shared world, the GOAL of life is dharma so that we strike fine balance with ourselves and others who makes up the real world.

Thus, education can vary in how it drives the individual, but dharma is a common code which everyone should follow to have a balance in life with others. The rise of adharma would simply mean indifferent conduct to other and would create imbalances thus threatening the very of self, or the object of existence.

-----------------

Why is Dharma goal of our life along with Artha, Kama & Moksha?

It is natural to chase our world and one will most likely follow an efficient and effective mean to individual achievement and survival. But it is not easy to realize that too much individualism can create disharmony in the society and nature. Thus, dharma has to be goal of life to live and let others live and strike a balance with nature.

To add further, the dharma should be based on absolute truth. We could ignore and let all such traditions and beliefs go which are specific to certain time and social realities.

* I may or may not agree with the views of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard.