Stay religious, stay cool!

I write this as Mumbai pays last respects to Bal Thackeray, one of the last few Indian politicians who was also an ideologue. A respect well earned, for he stood for something. People these days don't stand for anything. Being apolitical, secular or somewhat mono-religious, nearly monolingual and salari-olic, with hardly any cultural indulgence is the default lifestyle. Boring people!

I traveled in Gujarat recently, visiting the Indus-Saraswathi city of Dholavira and the Solanki dynasty's Sun temple in Modhera, besides Hathi Singhji Jain temple in Ahmedabad. It was heartening to observe the vibrant religious life of Swaminarayan followers. I hope to visit Dwarka (esp for its Sankara math) and Somnath someday.

But back in Bangalore, we went thru the motions of the most boring and meaningless festival in the modern Indian calendar, "Diwali" and watched on TV, some utterly unphilosophical and uneducated controversies about Ramayana and abortion. How bland have we become?

I wonder how many among the millions who celebrated Deepavali, spared a thought for the mysterious antiquity of this festival of Light, instead of spouting some mythical garbage added to the festival's history. I prefer celebrating light during Karthigai Deepam, on a full-moon night instead of the new/no-moon, focused on light and unsullied by noise and non-sense.

Back in the days when people were fighting for freedom, people drew inspiration from religious philosophy. Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Radhakrishnan, Besant, Dayanand Saraswathi, Rajaji were philosophers who used religion to lead people. For Tagore, Bharathi, Periyar, Nehru and Gandhi, social and cultural reforms were inseparable from Politics.

Unfortunately this tradition seems to be lost. While Arun Shourie and Markanday Katju are capable, its very hard to find someone analysing national issues with tools available in religious philosophy or our cultural history. If Aakar Patel wasn't there, some of us in the cities will be living in a cultural desert.

With the passing away of Bal Thackeray, Karunanidhi remains the last politician of the cultural kind. Both Akali's Badal and the Sindh-born Advani could have provided such cultural leadership, but perhaps lacking the intellectual capacity, they merely used religion for power grab.

Ofcourse, Karunanidhi's family has ruined the DMK and I wouldn't recommend anyone to vote for his party. But he deserves kudos for laying a Dravidian claim over the Indus valley civilization! When I attended the Classical Tamil Conference in Coimbatore, I wasn't impressed by Indus valley seals used in the official conference hoardings. But having read the latest academic literature, I now believe, Karunanidhi's boldness wasn't misplaced.

Here we have to especially thank Iravatham Mahadevan, who's mastery of epigraphy and deep insights into the Indian religious traditions, as chronicled by classical Tamil and Sanskrit literature, is helping to solve the Indus-Saraswathi and Tamil-Brahmi mysteries. Mahadevan's recent work draws heavily from Kosambi's massive contributions a few decades earlier.

Its facinating to follow our cultural history over 4000 years, juxtaposing folk tales and the totems of our tribes with the recorded history in the Vedas and the Sangam anthologies, creating a picture of the Indus-Saraswathi lifestyle and corroborating that with meticulous work in epigraphy and archeology.

We are forever in debt to Mahadevan, Asko Parpolo and Michael Danino. Their efforts are leading to a thrilling conclusion that we still live the Indus-Saraswathi civilization! I highly recommend following the works of the above scholars, but here's a gist.

SPOILER START.

Indus-Saraswathi civilization could have been a dravidian civilization. And their religion very similar to Sumerian and other middle eastern relgions, involving god-kings, water nymphs and ceremonial sex. Aryans and later Tamils seem to have followed the lives of these Indus-Dravidians in the vedas and sangam poetry. For example, the Velirs of the Tamil country (think Agathiar, Adhiyamans and Cheras) seem to be descendents of the Indus people. The Vedas offer a very vivid picture of Indus cities lying in ruins and their inhabitants scattered across the countryside. But the Vedic Aryans seemed to have entirely absorbed the Indus religion from Apsaras to the measurements of the yagna kundas. More on this in a later post. But you may want to visit the Madurai Meenakshi (fish-rule) temple, the porthamirai kulam (bath) in the ancient kadambavanam forest area and also notice the god-king Sundareswarar!!

SPOILER END.

*********

I consider myself to be a religion enthusiast, however I don't follow any religion 'religiously'. While Advaita Vedanta is my native religion, I consider myself to be a Jain and Epicurean too. My interest in the early Vedic and the ancient tamil religions (murugan, kottravai) is now revived. I find mono-lingual and mono-religious people to be sad losers.

It pains me to see other people's poor tastes in religion. In Gujarat, despite the abundant choices in better religions, we saw few dumb-fucks in Godhra killing the Rama crazies returning from Ayodhya, followed by a AD 21st Century pogram. Hello?! And that state's utterly uneducated, mass-murderer is now a favorite to be this country's leader!

Becoming secular is more natural, yes. But if only uneducated morons follow religion, and use some pathetic religions for their political ends, its gonna hurt us all. We need to hold on to the philosophies in our religions and culture. And despite what western atheists might say, world will be a better place if it derives its morals from (good) religions. Stay religious, stay cool!

Navarathri

Navarathri is here! Its perhaps my favorite Indian festival or atleast the Golu (display of thematic dolls) part of it.

I remember roaming around the streets of Periyapettai in Vaniyambadi town of Tamilnadu, mostly topless and wearing some saree material around the waist, going along with girls to invite neighbors for Navarathri golu!! While we never managed to grow a decent 'park' and our dolls collection was always meagre, our panthal (tent) used to be competitive!!

Err, for the uninitiated, Navarathri (meaning nine nights) is a festival dedicated to goddesses and usually comes following a new-moon day in October. The tenth day is also celebrated as Vijaya Dasami to make it Dasara. In the Hindu almanac, the fourteen days following the new-moon and full-moon days are called according to order (prathamai - first, ashtami - eight, navami - ninth, dasami - tenth etc). Hence the name.

After Magar Sankaranthi (winter solstice), I only find Navarathri being celebrated in far-corners of India for the same reason (goddess worship). Yes, Diwali is the most popular festival, but the reason for celebrating it is fundamentally different in the north and the south. The variations in the calendars make the New Year days different in parts of the country.

The Kali idols and Pooja pandals of Bengal, the Garba dances in Gujarat, the Dusshera procession of Goddess Chamundi in Mysore, the Golu (in some communities) and Ayudha (books/tools) pooja of TN, Vidya Aarambam (initiating children to letters) of Kerala, all make this festival especially colorful and somewhat enigmatic. I find it especially interesting that the festival is dedicated to aggressive feminine goddesses.

Even in north india, the navarathri festival is understood to be meant for Goddesses. But as is their wont, the hindiwallahs continue to disgrace every festival with immoral stories from an ancient semi-pornographic work of fiction (known as Ramayana). Here I digress.

I wish more people keep Golu in their houses. Its a great way to make kids interested in relatives, Indian philosophy, culture (and myths if you wish). Not to mention some healthy sundal (boiled pulses), amateur singing and beautiful traditional dresses.

The family history of keeping Golu is also amusing. I recently heard how one of the Shiva dolls in our golu (more than 40 years old, from my grandma's collection), was a pair with Parvati and the story of how that one broke. I remember how each of the dolls came into our collection.

And beyond all this, Golu represents a tremendous multi-religious tradition among Indians (Hindus). Dolls from different religions like Shaktism, Vaishnavism, Saivism, the Dravidian religions and in some houses, Brahmanism, Buddhism and Jainism smugly stand next to each other, and we being so used to it, don't even observe this as interesting.

And finally, did you know that Rasamalai and Rasagolla were invented by KC Das and his father respectively?!

Happy Navarathri!

Thanks Hitch, for everything.

Christopher Hitchens has passed away. I think writing about him is a good way to celebrate his life.

While his death was expected, his diagnosis last year did come as a shock. His passing away was not as peaceful and literary as that of Art Buchwald, but I wish it had not been as painful as the horse being flogged to death in that story about Nietzsche.

I have used this blog on several occasions to proclaim my atheism and utter contempt for anyone who believes in "God" and other irrational beliefs. I owe a lot of my thinking to Hitchens. While I was an atheist very early in life and do not recollect believing in "God" at any point, Hitchens et al gave me the confidence that I am right.

My childhood arguments against religion were probably inspired by Periyar, Bharathiar and my school Tamil teacher, but I used to be easily be cowed down by opposing views. From a dumb "are you any smarter than X and Y person who believes in God" to manufactured creationism in Advaita. Listening to Hitchens for countless hours on youtube, helped me to not get intimidated by idiotic superstitions being passed on as spiritual enlightenment.

While Richard Dawkins and Darwinian arguments were too bland for my taste, and I wasn't patient enough to indulge in Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett kind of sophistry, I found Hitchens very appealing. However I must add here that I consider myself to be very religious or lets say, a religion enthusiast. Just that I do not believe in irrational things like God.

Early this year, I gifted a copy of 'Hitch 22' to a friend for his wedding (?!!). Hope to buy one myself and read it soon.

Thanks Hitch, for everything. There is no reason to be sad today, for you have had such a wonderful life.

Kaarthigai Deepam - A festival of Lights

Today is Kaarthigai Deepam. A festival of lights celebrated in Tamilnadu. We light small earthen lamps and decorate the house-front. While munching on the pori-urundai (jaggery mixed popped rice balls), its pertinent to see the history of this lovely festival.

Kaarthigai is the name of a Tamil month and the Deepam festival occurs on the first or second full-moon day after Deepavali, which is a no-moon day. Deepavali (Diwali) is the more prominent festival of lights in North India. Its also the festival of noise (?! kidding) in South India. But its almost certain that Kaarthigai Deepam and Deepavali are the same festival.

Tamils follow a solar calendar. Its a month behind the other calendars of India. For example, Ugadhi, the Telugu and Kannada new year's day occurs in mid-March while the Tamil new year's day is mid-April. Infact, the Tamil Calendar is also behind the naming convention used in the other solar calendars like the Punjabi one.

Consequent of this, the Tamil Chithirai or Vaikasi is one month behind Chithra or Baishaki in other calendars. Now, I don't know how all these calendars still converge on the day of winter Solstice which is January 14 or 15 in all the states!!

Anyway, its likely becos of these calendar confusions, Tamils celebrate Kaarthigai Deepam a month behind Deepavali.

People all over the world celebrate the Sun and its winter Solstice. Thats the shortest day of the year and also the day on which Sun starts its northern journey. A similar festival for Light (artificial) or its source Fire is perfectly understandable. The Jews celebrate Light on Hanukkah roughly around the same time as we do. I'm certain the fire worshiping Zoroastrians also have their Deepavali equivalent, they being the symbiotic cousins of the Vedic-Aryans.

*****

How nice it'll be if Indians celebrated this festival for what it is. A festival of Lights. Alas, our small minds don't seem to comprehend the magnificent simplicity of this festival. We need clichéd reasons to celebrate Light.

The most clichéd of these reasons is the one about the victory of Good over Evil. Isn't Good always subjective? George Bush was obviously fighting for the Good side against the Evil Saddam Hussein. But how many on the planet subscribe to this view or celebrate it? Which brings us to the question of Rama, on whose name many north-Indians celebrate this festival.

Really? Is the victory of the racist, male-chauvinist, real-or-imaginary king Rama, any cause for celebration? And how silly is that a reason to celebrate the festival of lights? Even the other protagonists in the story (Sita, Jabali, Vali) called Rama, a dishonorable man. And to his face. I'll take George Bush any day over Rama.

Now, to the south Indian story for Deepavali. That Krishna helped by Sathyabhama killed Naragasuran and hence the good-over-evil motive for the festival of lights. While, the teachings of the Philosopher-King Krishna are close to the pinnacle of Indian achievement in Philosophy, why believe in such a silly story as Naragasuran being evil? He may well have been bad or it could be a typical Aryan story vilifying non-Aryans. But why bother?

These stories besmirch the antiquity of this festival which must be several thousand years old. I myself remember Mahavira's Nirwana on Deepavali, but he merely happened to die on this festival day.

I hope, we all mature as a civilization and appreciate the abundant wonders of the universe, most of which we comprehend as light from distant objects. Lets celebrate Light. Its Beautiful. Happy Kaarthigai Deepam!

Exaggerated Minorities in Linguistic Histories

... and possible conclusions in The Aryan-Dravidian Debate.

Introduction:

This post is in response to the review of Michel Danino's book 'The Lost River' by Jayakrishnan over there at The Varnam blog.

I read Michel Danino's book The Lost River earlier this year, ironically while traveling in Rajasthan, the deserts of which hide their share of the mysteries of Saraswathi. I have also read some works of Romila Thapar, DD Kosambi and Asko Parpola.

Problem Statement:

Lets phrase two of the important Questions in this field:

1. Was Harappan civilization (which now includes both the Indus and the Saraswathi valleys), an Aryan civilization? And that too, the Vedic-Sanskrit Civilization?

2. Is the Indus script likely to have been used to write an Aryan or a Dravidian language?

Literature Study:

Michel Danino makes a very convincing case that Saraswathi is indeed the mighty river praised in the Vedic Aryan literature and also the life giver of the Indus-Saraswathi civilization.

Romila Thapar has for long suggested that the origin of Sanskrit is more likely to be Bactria (central Asia) than northern or even north-western India. DD Kosambi had written extensively about the words and cultural habits of the natives that were inherited by the Aryan speakers. And Asko Parpola's research is on the lines of seeking a Tamil (and hence a decidedly non-Aryan) connection to the Indus script.

Ofcourse, the positions of the eminent historians above are more nuanced than the crude way in which I have put them.

What I'm saying:

I think if we don't leave detailed evidence, future historians, some 2000 years from now, will be fighting whether Arabs, Persians and Britishers were the original inhabitants of India. It may sound ridiculous but our current controversies could be as bizarre as such a proposition.

Example 1:

Minorities especially religious minorities have a tendency to contribute extensively to literature. For instance Tamil literature has a disproportionate amount of contributions from Jains, Buddhists, Brahmins and Ajivikas. Take some of the most famous works in early Tamil literature: Thirukkural (Jain), parts of Tholkappiam attributed to Tholkappiar (Brahmin), Silappathikaram (Jain), Manimekalai (Buddhist), 'Yadhum Oore ...' of Purananuru (Ajivika), Kamba Ramayanam (Brahmin).

Similarly Brahmin contribution to the medieval (some famous songs of Thevaram and Nalayira Divya Prabhantham) or even modern literature (Panchali Sapatham and songs by Bharatiyar), is disproportionate to the size of the Brahmin population in Tamilnadu. If you take the English works both in literature and the popular print that has orginated from Tamilnadu, Brahmin contribution is again disproportionately high.

We should also remember that, at certains points in history, south-Indian Brahmins (who's native tongues were now non-Aryan) also produced a disproportionately large amount of Sanskrit religious literature. Here, disproportionate with respect to the large Aryan speakers in the north of the country.

Example 2:

In the case of past thousand years of north India, the cultural contribution of Muslims especially in architecture is so humongous that any future historian will definitely mistake north-India as the world's largest Islamic settlement. And that too speaking Persian or even Arabic. Wait, let me rephrase it. India is certainly one of the largest Islamic settlements. But future historians may conclude that Islam was the religion of the majority of the people and Persian their language, both of which were never true.

Example 3:

Now, a more contemporary example. If its not already the case, majority of the words written in India in the near future are likely to be in English. But curiously, the words that may survive as archaeological evidence, like in Temple inscriptions may still have disproportionately more native (non-english) words. I mean disproportionate to popular print. Not to mention the fact that English could become the most understood language in India (overtaking Hindi).

Actually, in the above examples, when we mean literature and art forms produced in disproportionate quantity, its an assessment by what survives. Because, religious and linguistic minorities save their literature for future generations, much more than the majority communities who take things for granted.

Conclusions:

Now, applying the above heuristics to the Indus-Saraswathi debate:

1. its very much possible that Sanskrit is indeed of foreign origin and its spread in India and its influence on the native tongues, a quirk of civilizational time.

2. and its also possible that the Vedic Aryans were a minority community in the Harappan civilization. As found in Tamilnadu and elsewhere, these Vedic Aryans could have lived in secluded enclaves (Agraharams) and produced literature in a non-native, elite language (Sanskrit) and in a disproportionate quantity.

3. so we shouldn't be surprised if Indus script was used to write a non-Aryan language. Infact, considering the large corpus of Vedic Sanskrit and Tamil literature available, and our inability to decipher the Indus Script so far, we can even suggest a completely non-Aryan, non-Dravidian language. After-all, how much of the eastern Munda languages have survived in written form?

Postscript:

ps 1: If while reading the above post, you were thinking Aryan-Dravidian as a race debate, you are in the stone age of research in this field. Aryan-Dravidian debate is a linguistic one.

ps 2: The very interesting Nadistuti Sukta from the Rig Veda, mentioned by Michel Danino in his book.

ps 3: You may want to read this related (but rather pompously named) post by me. A History of Aryans.

On Spinoza's God

Prologue: This post began as a comment to Vijay's post on Spinoza. I had once criticized (?!) Einstein as a creationist who gave legitimacy to the notion of 'God'. Einstein ofcourse claimed to believe in Spinoza's (pantheist/deist) God.

********

I read what Bertrand Russell says about Spinoza and the wiki article. Ethics as you mentioned is a tough read.

Russell,

1. thinks Spinoza was a lovable person.

2. says Spinoza's whole philosophy is dominated by the idea of God.

3. dismisses Spinoza's metaphysics ("there is a logical reason for everything to be what it is") as inconsistent with science.

4. praises his Ethics.

There seems to be a parallel between Sankara's ideas on Brahman/Maya and Spinoza's metaphysics. So far so good.

But Spinoza goes further to say that "in every human mind, there is some awareness of God" and that a part of the "eternal mind" survives death.

Russell writes in detail about Spinoza's Ethics.

now, my take:

Like Russell, I think Spinoza's major contribution is Ethics. Although I'm not sure I agree with the notion that past and the future shud be treated equally becos for God, this time difference is immaterial.

the problem I have with Spinoza is the pre-conceived notion of the existence of God. his "intellectual love" for God is akin to what Meera wud have felt or what Mother Theresa wud have wanted to feel about God.

I suspect Spinoza's upbringing as a Jew couldn't free him up to address the question of God from an agnostic point of view. Once you are convinced of the existence of something, you can come up with any logical reasoning or even scientific reasoning (in Einstein's case) to justify the existence and consistency of the God theory.

I wud call Spinoza and Einstein, both creationists. (Russell calls Spinoza pantheist although he calls his metaphysics 'logical monism') Becos, I do not see how pantheism is different from Creationism. Let us not take "world is 6000 years old" kind of morons as examples for creationists.

My definition of a creationist is, anyone who claims a consistency and derivation in the current snapshot of the universe and is supposing that it all emanated from something powerful and perhaps benevolent or indifferent, and hence worshipful or lovable.

Einstein claimed that he doesn't believe in a immanent God who watches over every human action. We are to understand that like Spinoza, Einstein believed in the logical or perhaps scientific consistency of the universe as having derived from God. This is becos according to Spinoza, everything there is in the universe, is part of the whole, which is God.

Now, I'm quite lost here. This refusal to address the question of "why is God needed to explain anything?" rankles me. And from what I have read from Darwin, Dawkins and Hitchens, it is totally absurd to claim consistency in the appearance and the evolution of the universe. When there is no consistency nor is any case for a logical derivation, where is the need to explain it away with the notion of God?

Why bother about authorship when there is no book but merely a litany of words/phrases thrown up by a randomized function?

ps: I understand that I approach the question of God, from a pre-convinced (not pre-conceived!) position of atheism and hence am more skeptical than a agnostic wud be.

Religion is Great, 'God' doesn't exist and doesn't matter

I just read a piece by one Sujatha Desikan in the Tamil weekly Ananda Vikatan. He quotes from a discussion between writer Sujatha Rangarajan and Rangarajan's brother.

The crux, Rangarajan was thrilled while visiting the Sri Rangam temple becos it brought back childhood memories. But more importantly becos his ancestors had worshiped at that very temple, roamed its precincts and touched the very stones, Rangarajan was touching.

Its true. I have felt the same way while visiting the Big Temple in Thanjavur and have written about it here. Curiously I have no childhood memories of Thanjvur. I have visited that temple only twice in my life and that too only recently. But the thrill I feel in my spine while visiting the temple, cannot be put in words.

I don't believe in 'God' and don't remember believing in anything super natural even as a kid. But the fascination with Thanjavur temple is unmistakable. Yes, I like history and the fact that Rajaraja Cholan built and roamed about the temple, adds to the intrique. But the instinct to do something closely related to my family is probably the leading emotion.

Similarly, I'm fascinated not just by Adi Sankara's Advaita but also the Smartha brahmin tradition he spawned. Again, becos I know that my ancestors have followed that tradition. And quite likely from the days of Adi Sankara himself! Advaita, Jainism and Epicureanism are philosophies I tend to agree with. Mostly becos I believe they reject the notion of 'God'.

But I have critiqued myself that the Smartha Brahmin caste affinity also lies at the root of my fascination with Adi Sankara. And I agrue with my conscience that, I hate Brahmanism. Not becos its convenient but also becos I realize the injustice and hypocrisy inherent in Brahmanism. While anything associated with Sankara and Advaith thrills, I feel pure hatred towards the scoundrels who run the Kanchi Sankara mutt now. If Jayendra is convicted and sentenced to death, I wud gladly volunteer to be his hangman.

I understand my anger is becos these Kanchi scoundrels violated something I hold sacred and personal. Afterall, at my Upanayanam ceremony, my dad passed on a family tradition hundreds if not thousands of years old. And this (wud be) murderer Jayendra was invoked as the Guru.

I have once ridiculed (some) Sikhs for claiming sanctity for their cult while denying the same to an offshoot. I believe Sikh affinity with their ancestors is understandable and is a cause to be celebrated. But that doesn't make their Gurus immune to scrutiny and even ridicule.

In my case, I'm open to the idea that Adi Shankara committed suicide having lost a debate. And another advaitin Vivekananda called Adi Shankara, a blood thirsty Brahmin who enjoyed defeating Buddhist scholars which resulted in their suicides. I agree with that assessment. Elsewhere, Jain monks have weird views on laity and women, and are rightly criticised for it.

I have seriously considered throwing away the 'thread' I wear. It has no practical use other than to brandish my caste. I try to hide it in temples and in water bodies where I have to take my shirt off. I'm told, Udupi Krishna temple offers food separately to people with and without the thread. I recommend a terrorist bombing of the place.

But I haven't had the balls to cast the thread aside. My father initiated me into this institution and I'll have to perform animist rituals for our ancestors when he is no more. I know its irrational. All my ancestors are dead and gone. They don't need any food. Any connection there is, is entirely in my mind and nowhere else.

But this irrationality has practical uses. I have attended five funerals in the last two years and I know its inevitable that I'll attend more. The irrational rituals at funerals and later on, seem very helpful in going thru the trauma. That I think is the most important reason to persist with religion. Animist rituals in my family tend to be about ancestors going somewhere (?!) and living there. But I'm even ok with animist rituals that claim going to 'God' or sleeping with 72 virgins (4 at a time).

Daniel Dennet, philosopher and one of the four horsemen, calls religion a continuation of our tribal identities. I agree. While indulging in 'God' and other irrational beliefs, we shud never forget the rational for indulging in such irrationality. Go for it!

Before you celebrate Vijaya Dasami

1. Bride snatching was one of the most common ways of getting married in the ancient times. Krishna helped Arjuna to snatch Krishna's own sister.
2. After Krishna's death, when the royal entourage vacated ancient Dwaraka (not the one in Gujarat), the women folk, both married or otherwise, had to be protected from bride snatchers.
3. Ravana is worshiped by Jains as a man of honor who didn't touch Sita without her consent. Contrast this with Rama who supposedly banished her to the jungle as an 'impure' woman.
4. Ravana is ofcourse celebrated as a great Saivaite. The greatest 'Hindu' temple ever built in the history of mankind (?!!), the Kailasanatha temple, cave 16 in Ellora has a gigantic sculpture of Ravana moving Mount Kailash. The Chalukyas and several other dynasties celebrated Ravana in their temples.
5. People who celebrate 5 men sleeping with Draupati and then gambling her away, criticizing Ravana is quite hypocritical. Remember, one of those five was the recipient of Bhagwat Gita, 'the god's own words' (?!!).
6. Some versions of Ramayana mention Sita as the sister of Rama. Contrast the way Ravana treated Sita and Lakshmana treated Surpanaka (Ravana's sister).
7. When Rama met Sukriva in the jungle, he had been driven away by Vali. Why? becos Sukriva had earlier taken his elder brother Vali's wives and kingdom. Rama helped that Sukriva by killing Vali from behind.

Applying 21st century morals on ancient stories is a dubious exercise. Especially in a country where men marrying 4 women is legal for nearly 1/6th of the population.

Somebody supposedly returned triumphant on this Dasami day. But Dharma most certainly wasn't accompanying him. Victors write histories and epics. Celebrating victors, irrespective of whose side Dharma was on, tells a lot about us.

Disclaimer: I believe Krishna, the philosopher mentioned in the Chandognya Upanishad and who likely wrote the Gita, must have lived several hundred years after the flood of Hastinapur.

Touché

I found this interview of Richard Dawkins by one William Crawley amusing.

William asks few pertinent questions that might stump ordinary atheists. Like the one on Physical Constants. Not so tough as, "where do the natural laws come from?" but still interesting. Anyway the interview ends with this funny exchange.

William: There is a calvin irony facing you and your position Richard, that if you are right and there is no God and no afterlife, you don't get to discover that you were right! But if you are wrong, you might actually encounter God in an afterlife. And if he asks you "why didn't you believe in me?", what would you say?

Richard: Bertrand Russell said, "there was not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence". Let me throw the question back at you. Imagine that you do go to heaven and instead of God, you find Bayle or Mithras or Zeus and he asks "why did you believe in that dreadful Yahweh instead of me?"

I'm btw reading Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy these days. Orphism rocks big time! More later. For now, here's a rare interview with Russell himself.

Was Gabriel a mallu?

Recently I had encountered a couple of exchanges where Islam and Sufism were claimed to have influenced Vaishnavism (Vedic Brahmanism in its new avatar) and Advaita respectively. This is my customary abrasive rejoinder.

To begin with there is little doubt that the Philosophies in Islam and Vaishnavism are the same. But that should hardly be a surprise. Almost all the proletyzing religions of the world (Zorastranism, Vaishnavism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have the same philosophy. For afterall they all have the same central asian origin and have had extensive exchange of ideas thereafter.

Proletysers like Zakir Naik have preached ad-nauseum, the similarity between Vaishnavism (which he mistakenly calls Hinduism) and Islam. Stuff like Allah-Brahman (one without the second, transcendant God), 99 names - 108,1008 names (attributes), Angels-Devas (lesser deities), Muhammad-Krishna (prophets), People of the Books (Torah, Gospels) - Vedic People (Vedas, Upanishads), Quran-Gita (latest message), Jihad-Arjuna (war as karma) are too hard to miss. Ofcourse this similarity is used to encourage more conversions to Islam.

Infact Naik goes on to claim that the so-called Bhavishya Purana had predicted the birth of Muhammad and that Kalki avatar is none other than Muhammad. Such claims, however interesting, are juvenile and should not be taken seriously. All the Abrhamic religions (which I now think also includes Vaishnavism!!) come from the same lie that there is a monotheist creationist God who will judge us. Borrowing Einsteins infamous words, once we understand the bakwaas at the root, we can work out the details.

But claims that Islam/Sufism influenced Vaishnavism/Advaita are clearly misplaced and mischievous. As discussed above similarities between the practices of the Abrahamic religions are well known and documented. Dara Shikoh, the greatest Mughal Emperor we never had, went so far as to say that the Kitab-al-maknun (the hidden book) mentioned by Prophet Muhammad in the Quran was the Upanishad. It is preposterous to rearrange the pages of history to claim legitimacy for one's religion.

As for Sufism influencing Sankara's Advaita, its sheer non-sense. The confluence of the Transcendant and the Immanant God had been made as early as the Upanishads/Gita. Islam, Sufism and Vaishnavism are all Monotheist, not Monist. Advaita on the otherhand was a monist reading of the Upanishads which themselves were heavily influenced by the Shramanic and mostly atheist schools of the non-Brahmin scholars of Magadha (Ajivikas, Carvakas, Jains, Buddhists). Sufism resembling the Vaishnavaite Bhakti movement of Andal, Meera, Chaitanya etc is common-sense. People like personal access to God.

Muslims should stop being paranoid and begin to investigate Muhammad more honestly. Christians are no longer shy of accepting that Jesus got no divine message from any God but produced his own doctrine from his travels. There is even a movie going to be made claiming that Jesus visited India to learn/teach from scholars there. (Missionaries can rejoice!)

Consider few ideas. Muhammad was a merchant traveler and might have exchanged opinions with traders from Persia, Central Asia and South India. Vaishnavism took formal monothiest and sufi like devotional shape in South India roughly before the time of Muhammad. European Spice trade with the Indian Malabar coast was carried through Egypt and Arabia. Why could not Gabriel, the 'angel' who taught Muhammad be a Mallu from Kerala then?

Science, philosophy and Einstein's fraud!

The following was one of the replies that I sent in a mail discussion with my friends this evening. Have fun!

Science and Philosophy have never been contradictory. Theology especially abrahamic ones clash with Science. Ramar Sethu clashes with Science. Hindu philosophy doesn't.

Irrespective of how infinitesimal your point of analysis is, you'll have to come to some conclusion at some point. My guess is you are more likely to become an atheist or possibly remain agnostic all your life. Theism i.e. belief, mostly comes from social pressures or personal miraculous experiences. When someone claims the later, he is a goner in my opinion!

Looking at physics is one way of analyzing 'Creation' to figure if there is anything supernatural to it. But please be aware that the most famous physicist of our times, Einstein believed in God. He famously said "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are all details." So Einstein said Physics is a secondary detail when compared to Philosophy/Theology.

But I personally think Einstein was a fraud when it comes to GOD. He was a Jew and a great supporter of the Zionist movement (Israel - Holy Land). To appear politically correct, he may have fooled himself to believe in God. Besides his religion (Judaism) has absolutely moronic beliefs like 'God created earth 6000 years ago'. (Thats called creationism.)

I don't think Vivekananda would have called himself a Monotheist. Brahmanical religion (Hindusim), since it derives heavily from a 'misreading' of the Upanishads, appears to be monotheistic. Its actually Monism. But such western definitions are never suitable for Hindu Philosophy. Better to avoid them.

However, there is no need to belittle western thought and experiments with Philosophy. The mayans, incas, egyptians etc would have also acquired some understanding of GOD and philosophy. But since their religion/race/language etc were destroyed, the world may have lost that knowledge. We in India are merely fortunate that we can delve deep into our ancient scriptures.

Self realization - ah, this is the crux of my next blog post to prove Sankara/Krishna as atheists. So I won't reveal it here! But I can say Hindu philosophy has tried both the top down (world view) and the bottom up (self) approaches.

ok. On reading more about Einstein, he seems to have played a jugglery with words to hide his belief. He later in life seems to have claimed to not believe in a Personal God but thinks God (as in Brahman) may have designed the world. I still think he was a fraud.

India, the Land of the Impure!

The following was first posted as a comment here.

>> The Arabic conqueror, Muhammad Bin Qasim, established Islam in the Indian subcontinent by defeating King Dahar of Sindh in 711.

Although technically correct, I think this statement needs to be qualified. It should probably read “The Arabic conquerer, Muhammad Bin Qasim, annexed a Hindu kingdom in the Indian subcontinent by defeating King Dahar of Sindh in 711″. From that it can be deduced that Arabs introduced Islam to Pakistan in 711 and not to India!

Historians will know better, but its possible that Islam may have been introduced (as in glimpse) to peninsular India by the Arab traders before 711. Besides Arab conquest of India didn’t succeed. I doubt any Arab invader has ever set foot on Indian (not Pakistani) soil. Islam was not introduced (as in forced) in India atleast 250 years after Qasim’s conquest. As it were, India only got a second hand version of Islam from Turk, Mongol, Persian and Afghani invaders.

One of the pointers to Islamic introduction (as in force) to the subcontinent is the mass suicides of Hindu women (by burning) before their menfolk went to to fight the invading Muslims. Such suicides happened in Pakistan around 700s, in north India around 1000 and in the deccan around 1400s.

Its true that Pakistanis take pride in identifying themselves with invaders who killed, looted and raped their ancestors! Its indeed ironic that ‘India’ is the name of modern ‘Bharat’ and not the Indus (mostly) flowing Pakistan. But its true that Pakistan is the Land of the Pure (Arab Islam) and not India! [Pakistan means 'Land of the Pure']

In a similar vein, maybe its time the purists (Pakistanis) defeated the impurities (Taliban) around NWFP. But then such impurities are bolstered by the presence of super purists (Arabs)!

And btw, Wish you a very happy Deepavali - celebrating 2500 years of life, atheism and nirvana!

Hare Rama, Hare Krishna - Part 3

Now, I have to justify my claims that Krishna, Shankara, Buddha and Mahavira were all atheists! Before I give my polemics, lets see some definitions. If we are on different wavelengths, I think it'll be more difficult for me to get through. Contents inside square brackets indicate my position.

God - Ah! [For the moment, lets just say, whatever be your definition of God, I'm claiming that 'God' doesn't exist or that I don't accept your definition!]

Atheism - Some claim its the lack of belief in God. That sounds more like Agnosticism to me. I don't believe in God, because I know God doesn't exist. Atheism is not rejecting or being indifferent to religion. Thats secularism. [I'm Atheist, not secular. i.e. I'm a Hindu who just thinks there is no such thing as God. Ofcourse I like all religions.]

Agnosticism - a state where a person thinks he/she doesn't know enough to decide either way. [I'm not agnostic. I have made the leap of faith on the 'wrong' side!]

Creationism - God created this universe, humans etc. "Yahweh created earth 6000 years ago as a 4 billion year old planet". "Brahmins came from Vishnu's head". [I think creationism is bull-crap.]

Intelligent Design - There is a method to the madness! The universe, life etc are so complex yet in symphony that, there must be some intelligent design behind it. How can things be so organized if it all happened by chance? [I reject ID. I have no problem in accepting that everything I perceive (or not!) happened to be there just by chance. As a CS major, I know there is no such thing as a random number. But I still reject ID.]

Chasing Miracles - A state where a person 'wants to believe'. He/she is not satisfied with what he/she can perceive. He/she feels some saints have reached spiritual states that are desirable. In that state, he/she can perceive 'God'. [I think these people are gonna be disappointed!]

Paramatma - Universal Being. An omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendental entity that may influence our life. Some may call this influence as Determinism. Lets not use the word Brahman here, because I think the Upanishads and Shankara use it differently. I think Allah, Yahweh and Paramatma are synonymous. [I reject Paramatma. If someone convinces me that this Paramatma exists, I'm no longer atheist.]

Ishwara - Personal God. An entity which people worship as the manifestation of the Paramatma. In Shankara parlance, its the 'God' at the pragmatic level. People get a 'spiritual high' while worshiping Ishwara. This Ishwara is where theology ends. Beyond that its philosophy. [I have worshiped Personal Gods in the past. I may in the future. But I know I'm just indulging myself. "God, make this happen" is just the same as "I wish this happens".]

Spiritual High - Its a state of the mind like fear, depression, happiness etc. People get a high from their faith just like they might get from music, alcohol, drugs, sex etc. Religion has recognized this as Soma, Lingam (Phallus) etc.

Reality - Everything we perceive or not perceive. Creation (kriya, aakkam) is the process that brought everything into existence and that will tranform or destroy everything. This process never stops (or it may because of Para-Global Warming!). Shankara called this process a flow. This flow originates and ends in Brahman. Brahman itself is defined as something which exceeds not just the 'mere finite' but the 'infinite' as well. Bhagwad Gita talks about life cycles, everything starts and ends in Krishna. [I accept Reality. I'm part of it. I accept Brahman with a rider that Shankara himself taught us.]

Maya - Claim that what we perceive as material reality is just an illusion created by our ignorance. When we realize this Maya, we are in a state of peace/bliss where we can perceive everything for what they are. [I reject Maya. I think the distinction between what we perceive and not perceive is unwarranted. I believe Buddha or Mahavira when he says he went to a different spiritual state. But why should I waste my time/effort to reach that state, when I can just learn from them?]

More on my next post!

Hare Rama, Hare Krishna - Part 2

hmm... the trouble is, although I have declared Krishna to be my hero, I don't know who he was! Well, I'm obviously dismissing the Krishna of the Kamsa killer-Dwaraka King-Charioteer-God schema as bakwaas!

Is it a coincidence that the birth stories of Moses and Krishna (also Jesus and Karna) are almost the same. (King Ramses - Kamsa, infants are killed, this child is rescued across a river, grows on to kill the King.) Who cares who copied from whom, its just a story!

So this great king Krishna (who incidentally is God!) could help the Pandavas only as a Charioteer? I think people in those days would have fought like rats over resources and every able hand would have been helpful. Even otherwise, why was Krishna there in Mahabharata? Did he do any damn thing that was relevant to the story?

The Vedas are mostly hymns with four major themes - Gods, Sacrifices, Music and Magic. We ofcourse know them as Rig, Yajur, Sama and the Atharvana. Each group of Vedic texts includes Samhitas (hymns), Brahmanas (rituals), Aryankas (ramblings!) and Upanishads (philosophy).

Well, its fairly obvious that the Upanishads are the most relevant, because they explain the vedas (hymns) and expound on Hindu Philosophy formed over thousands of years. Bhagwad Gita is one extraordinary work which gives the essence of these Upanishads. Some call it an Upanishad in itself. Do you know who wrote that? Krishna! Obviously!! But who was he?

Veda Vyasa is regarded as the author of the Mahabharatha. But more importantly he was a very influential vedic scholar, who supposedly divided the vedic texts into four groups. [Vyasa - splitter. Veda Vyasa - Splitter of the Vedas.] Supposedly, because Vyasa might have been a generic name for all the scholars who accomplished this work.

Then there was this uninteresting land-dispute between some stupid cousins. Five guys sharing a wife (they still do in some tribes of Himachal Pradesh), a gullible girl who got herself into pre-marital pregnancy, kings (rather chiefs) gambling on land and their women. yeah, stupid people! But they happened (or were fabricated) to have fought a great war in Kurukshetra, a very significant place(?!) according to Indian Astronomy or rather Astrology.

So if Vyasa wanted to sell the most sublime work in Hindu Philosophy, namely the Bhagwad Gita, all he had to do was, to make a pot-pouri of the Gita, its author Krishna overblown as God, some random stories about his birth, childhood, girlfriends, kingdom etc, the Pandava-Gaurava nonsense and the Kurukshetra war. Bingo! an epic was born.

And it so happened that Veda Vyasa's original name was Krishna Dvaipayana. (Krishna - Black, Dvaipayana - Island born). Did Vyasa play a prank on the readers by superimposing himself as God Krishna in Mahabharata? No. There was a more interesting rishi called Krishna in the Upanishads.

One Mystic Fire recently pointed me to the following verse in the Chandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda texts:

III-xvii-6: Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to Devaki’s son Krishna and said, ‘Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad – "Thou art the imperishable, Thou art unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of Prana". (On hearing the above) he became thirstless. There are these two Rik stanzas in regard to this.

So here we have the Devakiputra Krishna learning some of the salient points of the Bhagwad Gita from Rishi Ghora who himself was a descendant of Rishi Angirasa. Looks as though I have found my hero! Guess I should learn more about him.

Well, yes. God may have come, born as Krishna, killed Kamsa, learnt that he himself was God from Ghora, preached it to Arjuna (copyright violation!) and promised us all that he will be born again and again to take on evil. But then, I'm atheist. And guess what, this Rishi Krishna propagates atheism in the Bhagwad Gita!

Happy Saraswathi Puja!

Hare Rama, Hare Krishna - Part 1

x: Name the two books which gave rise to popular Hindu Gods, Rama and Krishna.
y: Ramayana and Mahabharata.
x: Wrong answer.
y: What????!
x: Manu Smriti and Bhagwad Gita.

Well, if you knew the above 'correct' answer and also agree that Krishna, Shankara, Buddha and Mahavira were all atheists, then you can skip this series of posts!

I'm fairly convinced that Ramayana and Mahabharata are just propaganda material for two more powerful and influential books of India. First is the Manu Smriti,the bedrock of Aryan Racism and the second, Bhagwad Gita, the most important work on Hindu Philosophy. The characters in the epics being historical, mythical or metaphorical makes no difference to the above conclusion.

Ramayana and Racism:

Have you read the Laws of Manu? If not, I urge you NOT to read them! Because, I have read and can certify that Manu Smriti is the most despicable racist work in the history of mankind! In theory, Manu Smriti lays down the rules of behavior for the four Varnas and Women. But practically it says Shudras and Women should be treated like vermin.

Ramayana and its chief protagonist Rama obey the Laws of Manu to its last word! In other words, Rama was the paragon of Aryan Racism. No wonder the Aryans were so keen to celebrate and propagate Ramayana. Lets see why.

Rama and Brahmins:

Manu Smriti says Brahmins are the ultimate creation and their words are final. So does Ramayana. Do you remember the conversation between Viswamithra and Dasratha, when the former had come to request the services of latter's son Rama? [Hint: you cannot dishonour a rishi's request] Or do you have the count for the number of women and shudras killed by Rama, simply because Brahmin rishis ordered him to?

Rama, the Kshtriya:

Manu Smriti lays down fairly obvious rules for the conduct of Kshtriyas and Vaishyas. We all know Rama waged wars on the other indigenous people of India, adhered to 'Caesar's wife should be above suspicion' thing to banish Sita to the woods and provided Ram Rajya. But its the next two cases that are disturbing.

Rama's treatment of Women:

1. Manu Smriti doesn't seem to encourage polygamy. So nothing great in Rama being married to just Sita. In anycase having seen his father battered by his four mothers, Rama might have just been smart!
2. Rama doesn't hesitate to kill women at all. Infact scores of women are killed in Ramayana. Is it because, Manu Smriti gives very strict guidelines about things women should not do? Well, practically everything except serving her Lord is a no-no for women!
3. Can anyone justify Rama's treatment of Sita? This guy suspects that Sita's modesty was compromised and hence will no longer accept her. And we worship him as God?
4. What about the treatment of Surpanaka, (Raavan's sister) whose nose was sliced off by Lakshman? What's wrong if Raavan wanted to take revenge for this insult?
5. What about Lakshman rekha? Women who disobey the lines drawn by Manu Smriti will meet Sita's fate?

Rama's treatment of Shudras:

1. Manu Smriti says Shudra's only purpose in life is to serve the top three varnas. So says Ramayana with Guha, Hanuman, Sukreeva, Jadayu etc, etc.
2. But Shudras cannot dare usurp the rights of others. For instance Rama will kill Shambhuka, a shudra simply because he did penance. Shudras should know their place!
3. Despite all their help and sacrifices, people of Kishkinta will only be called 'vanar sena'. (I know vanar is not a derogatory word, but even educated people call Hanuman, a monkey god!)
4. And what on earth did Vali do to deserve being stabbed in the back by this God Rama? Rama had seen him only for the second time in his life. The first time he couldn't differentiate between Vali and Sukreeva, to kill the former when they were fighting!

Well, I have just listed some fairly well known flaws in Rama's character. Ram Bakhts would like to think that they're all God's lessons for us. And that Ramayana just happened to obey the rules of the time. But believe me, Ramayana is just racist propaganda! In anycase, its totally anachronistic in this age. Even school kids these days have better morals than Rama ever had.

And now to my hero, Krishna!

Racism for Dummies

Al Khwarizmi (Persian - Math - 9th Century - Algorithm) once said that Indians should stop being frogs in the well, go explore the world and learn from others and shun this 'we are a great civilization, we know everything' attitude. If only dumb editors like Shekhar Gupta of the Indian Express had done that, they would have known what the world calls as 'racism'.

How on earth are the Monkey chants and antics directed at Australian Cricketer Andrew Symonds, not a case of racism but instead bad crowd behavior? The mere mention of the word racism seems to remind Indians of the imaginary donkey rides across the Khyber pass or even the Negroid journeys from Africa.

The world considers any discrimination based on physical appearance, ethnicity, religion or whatever as racism. In a country which worships a racist Aryan king Rama as God and where every other guy uses the caste, its derivatives or Varna (Sharma, Varma, Gupta etc) as the last name, Monkey chants are bad crowd behavior?!

If this is bad crowd behavior, then I wonder what the following things are: bottle throwing, booing, burning paper, breaking seats, chair throwing, walking in front of the sight screen, supporting opposition teams for the sake of Kashmir, Khalistan, Ganguly etc, Aaloo chanting and watching youtube videos of Prasad and Sreesanth's antics. huh?

Worse, some people even claim that we worship Hanuman, a monkey and hence these Monkey chants are acceptable behavior in India! Do these idiots even realize that Hanuman and his so-called vanar sena are the most extreme form of racism there can be? A tribe, most probably from Kishkinta in Karnataka, who helped Rama, has been reduced to being called 'vanars' and you guys shamelessly call Hanuman worship as Monkey worship?

Guys, don't have any illusions. We, Indians are born racists. We have always been obsessed with color and physical appearance. We have always called each other Mleechas, Shudras, Raakshs, Madrasis, Kongas, Pondis, Aravadu, Gults, Biharis based on appearance and diction. We color our gods (blue?!) and even our books (Shukla - white and Krishna - black). When we don't like someone we give them imaginary grotesque features (Asuras, Raakshs).

Wait, why am I wasting your time? You guys have better things to do like, protesting against 'racist' abuse of Shilpa Shetty, calling the Indian Idol from Siliguri, a Gorkha and hence a Nepali illegal, stopping a 300 Metre hole in a 30 Kilometre 'Monkey built' bridge and burning ten head grotesque Raakshs like Raavan at Ramlila. (10 heads = pathu thalai in tamil. thalai = head and also direction. i.e. Raavan's kingdom extended in all 10 directions, 8 + sky + underworld!) Have fun!

A History of Aryans

1. Aryans are Indians.

2. They have predominantly lived in north India (Indo-Gangetic plain) roughly from the time of the end of the Harappan civilization (c 3500-1500 BC)

3. They were introduced to Sanskrit and Rig Veda by the nomads who came from Northwest India/Afghanistan/Persia. Sanskrit adopted the Devanagari script in India. [There is a possibility that Rig Veda may have originated in India and was later recycled back from Persia. But that is a mere conjuncture with current evidence.]

4. In the Vedic age, people used to worship both Devas and Asuras. The Vedic Brahmins sided with Devas (Indra, Maruti, Vayu et al) and the Zoroastrians sided with Asuras. (Varuna/Mithra - Ahura Mazda). Ahura Mazda is worshiped by Parsis to this day.

5. The earliest converts to Aryan thought were the Indian priest class and aristocracy. [Aryan thought - controlling people's access to Gods because of the exclusive ownership of knowledge by the Priest class.] They started taking converts and branded them as either Kshtriya or Vaishya . Thus the Varna system was introduced. Other native Indians, too ‘uncultured’ for Brahmins were branded as Shudras.

6. Aryans adopted a pantheon of Indian and Vedic Gods as their own. Indian Gods include Shiva (bull) and Vishnu (Unicorn - Horse) from Harappa. Murugan, Perumal, Indran, Varunan and Kottravai from the Tamil country. Gods of the animist religions of the north east. There were apparently 33 Vedic Gods. They include Indra, Vayu, Agni etc

7. Aryans then started expanding to other parts of India. According to Ramayana, Rama a racist Aryan King from Ayodhya or its vicinity who supposedly invaded the Tamil Country and Sri Lanka. [There is a parallel thought that, though Ramayana is an allegory of the aryan war on aborigines, Rama himself may have be been an imaginary character.] This Rama as was custom then, declared himself to be an incarnation of Vishnu. (Other examples of God Kings are the Guptas of Angkor Wat in Cambodia and King Gyanendra of Nepal.) Valmiki's Ramayan is among the many versions of this story.

8. Aryan religion which by now was at the clutches of Brahmins was shelled by the Carvakas (atheists), Buddha and Mahavira around 500 BC.

9. Aryans survived the onslaught by writing down lots of Philosophical work (which were known even before) into books. Hindu schools of thought like Samkhya, Yoga etc came into being.

10. Aryans introduced a mythical God called Krishna into the Mahabharata story which was already common knowledge. Bhagwat Gita gave Philosophical solidity to the Hindu-Aryan religion.

11. But this recovery was not eternal. Gupta’s who encouraged King-worship further weakened the Aryan religion by inadvertently ignoring Philosophical advancement.

12. From 7th century onwards North India stopped producing any meaningful work on religion. It came up with more Puranas and other bull-crap stories about Aryan gods like Ram and Krishna. However South India which was still multi-religious (Buddhism, Jainism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Brahmanism) continued to produce philosophical works by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhvacharya etc. The bhakti-cult started in Tamil country by Aalwars and Nayanmars allowed all the people, irrespective of their caste, access to Gods.

13. The Muslim invasion of north-India completely nullified any revival of Philospohical work in North India. To counter the Allah/Koran combination, Aryans embraced Ram/Ramayan. Mahabharatha which was much smarter than Ramayan because of its Philosophical content failed to gain popularity. Ramayan whose racist intent was reduced by branding South Indians as Vanar Sena, Ravan as Brahmin etc gained popularity even among the Shudras of North-India.

14. Following the lifting of Muslim/Christian rule over India, Hindus wanted to revive their religion. Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Prabupada etc contributed to this effort. But since Aryan's philosophical acumen was long lost, they could only resort to imposing dubious Gods like Rama on others. They demolished the Babri Mosque (which may have been built on the birth place of King Rama) to assuage the hurt Hindu-Aryan pride.

15. To this day, Aryan onslaught on India’s other indigenous faiths continues in places like Tamilnadu and the North east. Latest such attempt to impose Aryan Gods on Tamils is the mindless Ramar Sethu controversy.

Disclaimers:

1. If you don't understand the word 'Aryan' and are confused by its usage in European texts, thats not my problem. May be you should read this.

2. I cannot care less about the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory or the 'Out of India ' theory. Such theories are for addled minds who have no patience to read Indian History.

3. Brahamins became a caste/varna from about 1000 BC.

4. The nomads along the indo-iranian border lands spoke Sanskrit and worshiped a pantheon of esoteric gods. There was rivalry between the worshipers of Indra and Ahura Mazda. The definition of Aryans in this post doesn't include those nomads.

Magic Weekend!

There's magic in the air. As I write this, I know lots of folks around the world are already reading the Deathly Hallows. Its still four hours left here in this part of the world. Here's a not so live blog...

8 PM, Friday: I only got the Silver! I went to Borders straight from work and guess what... fans have already lapped up the Orange wristbands! Well, fans get wristbands of six colors based on which they'll stand in the queue at midnight. I only got the second color. No matter!

For all those non-magical folks (Muggles) who are amused by all this, here's fews bits to kindle your intellectual curiosity.

1. The word 'Magic' comes from the Magis' - the Zoroastrian priests! Magis are similar to Rabbi's of Judaism and Brahmins of Vedic Hinduism (ala Brahmanism). Zoroaster, who may or may not have founded the said religion was a priest who used to render hymns from the Rig Veda.

There was a huge debate between Vedic scholars who took sides between Devas and Asuras. No, Asuras were not bad guys at that time. Zoroastrians celebrated Varuna Mithra, whom we now probably know as Ahura Mazda. (Ahura = Asura). Hinduism might have later demonised Asuras because of this fundamental divide.

2. For all we know Harry Potter may be a PIO - Person of Indian Origin! Afterall, the original witches and wizards are the Romani people whom we also know as Gypsies. Its suggested that, during the Islamic invasion, they migrated from Northwest India to Persia and eventually to Europe. The Romani flag now has the Ashoka Chakra to celebrate this bond! Romani history is a heart wrenching one. More on that may be on a later post.

3. Its one of my dreams to visit the Church of 'Sara Kali' (yes 'Kali') in Southern France. This amazing Goddess is a heady mixture of Christianity, Judaism and Romani Hinduism. Her black color and the name obviously derive from India. Christianity claims that she walked on the Mediterranean waters to welcome the early Christians from the Holy Land. And ofcourse we can also imagine her to be the daughter of Jesus Christ who escaped from the 'Christians' (Or someone related to that supposed event).

10 PM, Friday: I'm now leaving for the 'Grand Hallows Ball' at Borders. When I'm back I'll have the book.

1 AM, Saturday: I have it! It took about 45 mins on the queue. Not bad, was it? Now, I'll be back on planet Earth when I complete the book.

8 PM, Sunday: Done.

God = Alcohol?

Its been a busy two weeks. Busy being lazy! Went to Yellowstone for Memorial day weekend and had a great time. Will post photos once I get my laptop fixed.

In the meanwhile I have been reading a lot on philosophy/religion. In response to my previous post, I had lot of people complaining about my assertions that "I know a lot" about religions! True, I'm hardly a theologian. When I say "I have read about a religion", it normally means several 'Breadth First' readings of Wikipedia articles. With few books, novels and mirchi debates with friends also thrown in.

For example, at this moment I'm reading a novel called 'The Haj' (on the fate of Palestinian Arabs during the Zionist movement), have almost given up Orhan Pamuk's 'Snow' as a lost cause and keeping 'The Secrets of the Vedas' and the proverbial 'India, a History' by John Keay for some light reading. Next week I'll be starting 'A sourcebook in Indian Philosophy'. Edited by Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, it contains excerpts from many important works in Indian Philosophy. Is this level of reading enough to form opinion about religions and gurus? Well, I think so.

Considering that I'm now a self declared supporter of anything French and that I live in California, its only natural that I should try some wine! And so I did on my Yellowstone trip with 'White Zinfandel'. It was horrible! I have always ridiculed my friends who drink 'rotten flora juices'. Now I have personal evidence that this thing really sucks. Anyway one of my friends tried to impress me with this, "Truth is bitter, so is alcohol. Hence Alcohol is truth!". Although I brushed aside that inebriated quip, it helped me to form an interesting theory about God.

This is how it works. Wine tastes really bad, period. The drunkards claim that once you drink more and more, you'll start liking it. i.e You'll like wine when you are addicted to it! Sorry guys, I'm not that stupid. Anyway, isn't that the same with ones belief in God? Anyone who has had some education or has given it a fair bit of thought can be reasonably certain that God doesn't exist. Or he can atleast never buy the cock and bull stories that our religions sell about God. The only reason most of us believe in God or claim to believe in God is because our parents and society have made us addicted to it! So I now claim God = Alcohol. Anyone in his stable state won't like either of them. Others are in 'excited' states!

Few months ago, on a trip to Patagonia Lake in Arizona, another friend of mine was trying to convince us to go boating. None of us can swim! So I offered the logical retort that "I'm not ready to drown yet!". This led to a 'philosophical' debate on "what do we have to lose if we die today?" Yesterday he returned to the topic. "Will it be so bad if we commit suicide?". In most cases, it'll indeed be bad. Even ignoring our personal loss, it will cause devastation to our parents and other loved ones. But what about orphans who have no personal bonds and in many cases lead a wretched life? Is it ok for them to commit suicide? Well, obviously myself and my friend do not believe in life after death. For us death is the end of our physical and spiritual existence.

Now the question is, does Suicide = Moksha? Come to think of it, all these Sadhus try real hard to get out of family bonds. Material possessions are anyway easy to lose. So when you have nothing left to care about, are we ready to attain Moksha? If you are familiar with the 'northening' concept (vadakkiruththaL, in Tamil, popularlised by that koperunjcholan - pisiraanthaiar story) or the Jain 'Sallekhana', aren't those folks trying to commit suicide? If so why are our laws in general and religions like Islam in particular against suicides?

While you do that assignment you can also send me answers on 'Whats wrong, if at all, with polytheism?' for extra credits.

Footnote 1: It should be obvious that I'm agnostic. But I do understand why 'Man created God!'. I have read in someone's blog that "Agnostics are atheists without ba**s". So I call myself Atheist. Now this doesn't stop me from being a Hindu. Cool, isn't it?

Footnote 2: Did you know that Mormons believe the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri and that their founder Joseph Smith ran for US president?!!

Blasphemy, huh?

Yes, I'm still alive. True, silly things like office work have interrupted more important things like blogging. But other than that, life is good!

Before going into serious issues at hand, let me disclose my love for French movies! Europeans have taken movies to an altogether different plane. Frankly, if you aren't already addicted to French movies, there is something seriously wrong with you. So this afternoon, I went to see Paris, Je t'aime. Its a collection of 18 five minute movies. Among them the one I liked the most was a romantic first encounter between a French Muslim girl and a history student. When he helps her to set right her hijab (scarf) after a fall, his friends taunt him, "dude, why did you touch her hair? Osama will personally bomb your a** for this!" hmm... director's sense of humor while handling a sensitive issue.

But alas some Sikh fanatics could not appreciate the sense of humor when Dera Sacha Sauda chief comically dressed himself like the Tenth Sikh Guru Gobind Singh. But what I found really hilarious was some sikhs calling this as 'Blasphemy'. I think 'Blasphemy' is a serious word more appropriate for conventional religions. Not so for quasi-sects like Sikhism. The failure to understand this has cost thousands of Indian lives in the past.

A brief history of Sikhism for upstarts. Punjab has been at the forefront of Hindu-Muslim clashes for close to 1300 years now. It has also been immersed in the waves of Sufism equally long. So Guru Nanak, who lived in the period of religious turmoil in Mughal India created a sect with concepts like 'there is no allah or ram, but only one god' and 'do your work, share the fruits' etc. I think he was more like the Shiridi Sai baba than likes of Buddha, Mahavira, Sankara etc.

Guru Nanak then nominated one Guru Angad as his successor, who also seems to have displayed some spiritual inclination. But after that 'Sikhism' was more pre-occupied with rituals and politics. All the other 'Gurus' who followed him were members of one single family and some fought like warlords against the Mughals. One such 'guru' was five years old at his ascent and 'nominated' his uncle as the successor when he died aged seven! And finally the Tenth Guru Gobind singh, who also established the Khalsa, nominated the Granth Sahib (the holy book) as the eternal 'guru'. This may have been because all his children and wife were killed by the Mughals. Now I cannot see what harm could have been caused if Baba Ram Rahim Singh had dressed himself like this tenth 'Guru'. You guys want to burn Punjab for this?

And whats worse, the whole Khalistan movement was started on such ludicrous competition between some sects of the sikh 'religion' before turning into a wholesale war against India. So for all people who follow similar 'gurus' or 'divines' like Sai baba, Shivshankar baba, Yagava Munivar, Ram Rahim Singh, Guru Gobind Singh etc, here's my humble request. Fights between your gurus may look very spiritual and important to you folks. But for outsiders like me, they look very funny. (Just as all religions look funny to agnostics and atheists). But when my fellow Indians get killed because of such fights, its no longer funny. Its disgusting. So please do not repeat the mistakes of the past.