Hinduism is factually the world's oldest religion and thus, there is a number of misconceptions on it.
Probably one of the most famous misconceptions, even within Hindus, is that they are required to worship idols. The truth is Hindus are asked not to worship idols, but worship God in the form of idols. With so many idols and faces of the Almighty, people tend to easily get confused between God and idols. The purpose of worhsipping God through idols is to facilitate contemplation of the infinite with our finite capabilities. Reaching the infinite with finite capabilities is one of the paradoxes in Hinduism.
To digress slightly, most paradoxes make us think and the simple reason is that they contain the universal truth in them. Note "simple reason" and "universal truth", even that is a paradox I just thought of!
I read this online article (Hinduism, the world's oldest religion - a simple introduction to a complex religion) on misconceptions of Hinduism and noticed a quote of a great intellectual, Swami Vivekananda, "if a person wants to drink milk, he uses a cup as he cannot drink it directly. For the quivering and unsteady mind, there should be a visible form or a symbol, the idol, so that it becomes a foundation for his adoration. The idol form of God is akin to a vessel which enables a man to drink the milk. Through the instrumentality of an idol, a devotee comprehends divinity."
More interesting facts can be found through this website http://www.geocities.com/Athens/forum/9410/hindu1.html
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Ancient evolution theory in Hinduism
There is an interesting insight on how evolutionary is being depicted through the ten incarnations of the Hindu Lord Maha Vishnu. This is what it is believed to be.
Matsya(fish) to Kurma(tortoise-amphibian) to Varaha(boar) to Narasimha(half-man/half lion) to Vamana(dwarfed man-with stunted growth) to Parasurama(axe wielding primitive man) to Rama(justly king-epitome of goodness) to Krishna(worldly wise-machiavellian) to Buddha(enlightened one) to ?
The last incarnation is believed to be Kalki Avatar. The incarnation He takes to destroy the world which is equivalent to that of what other religions believe to be "judgement day".
There is another belief of how Lord Surya's (Sun) had seven chariots which correspond to the seven colours of the spectrum.
It is fascinating that our forefathers knew well about science which we know of today. In the Golden and Silver Ages, some civilisations were known to have used technology more advanced than ours. Just imagine, people in those days used technology greater than that of computer's.
Matsya(fish) to Kurma(tortoise-amphibian) to Varaha(boar) to Narasimha(half-man/half lion) to Vamana(dwarfed man-with stunted growth) to Parasurama(axe wielding primitive man) to Rama(justly king-epitome of goodness) to Krishna(worldly wise-machiavellian) to Buddha(enlightened one) to ?
The last incarnation is believed to be Kalki Avatar. The incarnation He takes to destroy the world which is equivalent to that of what other religions believe to be "judgement day".
There is another belief of how Lord Surya's (Sun) had seven chariots which correspond to the seven colours of the spectrum.
It is fascinating that our forefathers knew well about science which we know of today. In the Golden and Silver Ages, some civilisations were known to have used technology more advanced than ours. Just imagine, people in those days used technology greater than that of computer's.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Lord Krishna - Best example of a leader
Economic Times, December 2004, provided a case study on leadership portraying Lord Krishna as the best example of a leader.
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two great masterpieces of ancient Indian literature presenting two philosophies of life. Valmiki’s Rama represents idealism and Ved Vyas’ Krishna, realism.
Ram is a character. Krishna is an actor; he involves himself without being involved. He is a catalyst energising others into action. He refuses to circumscribe his life with ideas and ideals. For him life is larger than all ideas and ideals put together. They are for life; life is not for them. It’s the same mind that gives rise to both good and evil, virtue and vice. Both aspects are different transformations of one and the same energy. Krishna doesn’t deny these dualities. A mirror reflects everything that appears before it, but unlike a camera, it doesn’t retain impressions. A man of mirror-like consciousness will relate with people and things, but he won’t enter into relationships involving attachment. Rama is a doer; he acts for his ideals and is therefore called marayada purshottam. Krishna on the other hand, is an incomparable actor; he turns the whole world into his stage. He plays a friend and a foe without being involved in friendship and enmity. Krishna is called leela-purshottam. He accepts all contradictions and ambiguities of life. He isn’t afraid of them. That is why he’s called complete or purnavatar. Krishna’s mission of life was to uphold dharma. His whole life is like an open book. He wears no mask. Whatever he is, he is. He doesn’t deny anything; he is transparent. It’s true that life is full of contradictions and absurdities. To Krishna all that doesn’t justify escapism. He does what is situationally appropriate. Since it’s not possible to remain a mere witness, it’s better to act with complete self-knowledge and moral courage.
Creative destruction - There’s one event in Mahabharata, which generally doesn’t catch popular attention: the burning of the Khandava forest. After the plan to kill Pandavas failed, Dhritarashtra was forced to give them a share of the kingdom. Keeping Hastinapur to himself and his sons, he gave a little-known town Khandavaprastha to the Pandavas. On a hot summer day, younger members of the Pandava family with Krishna’s family went for a picnic to the nearby Khandava forest. There they drank, sang and danced. Suddenly everyone saw that the forest caught fire and Krishna and Arjuna together guarded all sides so tightly that no creature fleeing from the blaze could escape. Furiously driving their chariots, the two slaughtered everything in sight. Fire consumed almost all vegetation and life. It’s not known how the fire really started. But, the question remains: why Krishna and Arjuna acted so ruthlessly and so mercilessly? Of course, the Pandavas were planning to build Indraprastha, a city bigger than Hastinapur, which they did. And, they may also be trying to fulfil the duty of a ruling king to provide more land for cultivation. Forests had to be cleared for human settlement and entire region made rich and fertile.
Swadharma as ordained by swabhava Krishna makes a distinction between ends and means. Ends can be idealistic but if means are absolutely pure, they will soon become ends and the distinction between ends and means will disappear. Is a pure end ever fully achieved? It’s always there as an ideal. Often at times the problem is to choose between greater evil and lesser evil. If it’s found necessary Krishna breaks his own vows. Violating the kshatriya code, he once even ran away from the battlefield because discretion could sometimes be a better part of valour. His elder brother, Balarama, decided to remain neutral in the battle at Kurukshetra. Krishna knew great issues were at stake. He was also aware that both sides looked at him as a friend. Neither side was totally right nor totally wrong. The way he divided himself is extraordinary. He told them they had two options: he or his army. It’s obvious if one is anxious for victory he wouldn’t choose Krishna without his army and, more so when he says, he wouldn’t fight. The Pandavas chose him because they knew he was a great strategist, at one moment a sober statesman, but very often also the shrewd manipulator bent upon achieving his purpose irrespective of means employed. He manipulated killings of all outstanding warriors of the Kauravas’ army. They knew his presence was more important than his participation.
Krishna is perhaps the best example of a leader as a catalyst available in world literature. He has no interests, no position and no power. Yet on almost all important occasions when great events occur in Mahabharata He is present. He does nothing, his presence makes things happen. The word Krishna means centre. He is the centre of attraction. He stands for certain values of life and wants to destroy all those who make others suffer. Unlike Rama he doesn’t try to walk on a straight line. He deviates when it is situationally appropriate.
The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two great masterpieces of ancient Indian literature presenting two philosophies of life. Valmiki’s Rama represents idealism and Ved Vyas’ Krishna, realism.
Ram is a character. Krishna is an actor; he involves himself without being involved. He is a catalyst energising others into action. He refuses to circumscribe his life with ideas and ideals. For him life is larger than all ideas and ideals put together. They are for life; life is not for them. It’s the same mind that gives rise to both good and evil, virtue and vice. Both aspects are different transformations of one and the same energy. Krishna doesn’t deny these dualities. A mirror reflects everything that appears before it, but unlike a camera, it doesn’t retain impressions. A man of mirror-like consciousness will relate with people and things, but he won’t enter into relationships involving attachment. Rama is a doer; he acts for his ideals and is therefore called marayada purshottam. Krishna on the other hand, is an incomparable actor; he turns the whole world into his stage. He plays a friend and a foe without being involved in friendship and enmity. Krishna is called leela-purshottam. He accepts all contradictions and ambiguities of life. He isn’t afraid of them. That is why he’s called complete or purnavatar. Krishna’s mission of life was to uphold dharma. His whole life is like an open book. He wears no mask. Whatever he is, he is. He doesn’t deny anything; he is transparent. It’s true that life is full of contradictions and absurdities. To Krishna all that doesn’t justify escapism. He does what is situationally appropriate. Since it’s not possible to remain a mere witness, it’s better to act with complete self-knowledge and moral courage.
Creative destruction - There’s one event in Mahabharata, which generally doesn’t catch popular attention: the burning of the Khandava forest. After the plan to kill Pandavas failed, Dhritarashtra was forced to give them a share of the kingdom. Keeping Hastinapur to himself and his sons, he gave a little-known town Khandavaprastha to the Pandavas. On a hot summer day, younger members of the Pandava family with Krishna’s family went for a picnic to the nearby Khandava forest. There they drank, sang and danced. Suddenly everyone saw that the forest caught fire and Krishna and Arjuna together guarded all sides so tightly that no creature fleeing from the blaze could escape. Furiously driving their chariots, the two slaughtered everything in sight. Fire consumed almost all vegetation and life. It’s not known how the fire really started. But, the question remains: why Krishna and Arjuna acted so ruthlessly and so mercilessly? Of course, the Pandavas were planning to build Indraprastha, a city bigger than Hastinapur, which they did. And, they may also be trying to fulfil the duty of a ruling king to provide more land for cultivation. Forests had to be cleared for human settlement and entire region made rich and fertile.
Swadharma as ordained by swabhava Krishna makes a distinction between ends and means. Ends can be idealistic but if means are absolutely pure, they will soon become ends and the distinction between ends and means will disappear. Is a pure end ever fully achieved? It’s always there as an ideal. Often at times the problem is to choose between greater evil and lesser evil. If it’s found necessary Krishna breaks his own vows. Violating the kshatriya code, he once even ran away from the battlefield because discretion could sometimes be a better part of valour. His elder brother, Balarama, decided to remain neutral in the battle at Kurukshetra. Krishna knew great issues were at stake. He was also aware that both sides looked at him as a friend. Neither side was totally right nor totally wrong. The way he divided himself is extraordinary. He told them they had two options: he or his army. It’s obvious if one is anxious for victory he wouldn’t choose Krishna without his army and, more so when he says, he wouldn’t fight. The Pandavas chose him because they knew he was a great strategist, at one moment a sober statesman, but very often also the shrewd manipulator bent upon achieving his purpose irrespective of means employed. He manipulated killings of all outstanding warriors of the Kauravas’ army. They knew his presence was more important than his participation.
Krishna is perhaps the best example of a leader as a catalyst available in world literature. He has no interests, no position and no power. Yet on almost all important occasions when great events occur in Mahabharata He is present. He does nothing, his presence makes things happen. The word Krishna means centre. He is the centre of attraction. He stands for certain values of life and wants to destroy all those who make others suffer. Unlike Rama he doesn’t try to walk on a straight line. He deviates when it is situationally appropriate.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Equations for success and wisdom
As stated by Nirmala, the equations for success and wisdom can be:
Innocence + Faith (catalyst) = Success
If we are not innocent, it is difficult to have faith (we know the truth, we know what works and what doesn't, we know how bad the world really is, we understand where others are coming from and don't trust people). If we don't have faith in anything, it's difficult to succeed. So, success will have to start (and continue) with innocence. It should be possible to retain one's innocence even with increasing success. To give an example of this explanation, suppose if we want to do a business with someone but are afraid to trust the person (lack of innocence) and don't really believe in ourselves (lack of faith), we won't know the sweet taste of success.
Ignorance + Learning (catalyst) = Wisdom
If we believe that we are not ignorant and know just about everything there is to know, then we don't want to learn or rather we don't think there is anything to be learned. If we don't learn, we are not gaining any wisdom. Hence, we need to start with ignorance to gain wisdom. It should be possible to be ignorant and wise at the same time. The term ignorance, in this context, means to have the attitude to learn; to be learnable.
Innocence + Faith (catalyst) = Success
If we are not innocent, it is difficult to have faith (we know the truth, we know what works and what doesn't, we know how bad the world really is, we understand where others are coming from and don't trust people). If we don't have faith in anything, it's difficult to succeed. So, success will have to start (and continue) with innocence. It should be possible to retain one's innocence even with increasing success. To give an example of this explanation, suppose if we want to do a business with someone but are afraid to trust the person (lack of innocence) and don't really believe in ourselves (lack of faith), we won't know the sweet taste of success.
Ignorance + Learning (catalyst) = Wisdom
If we believe that we are not ignorant and know just about everything there is to know, then we don't want to learn or rather we don't think there is anything to be learned. If we don't learn, we are not gaining any wisdom. Hence, we need to start with ignorance to gain wisdom. It should be possible to be ignorant and wise at the same time. The term ignorance, in this context, means to have the attitude to learn; to be learnable.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Pebble story
I rarely get impressed by intellectual bloggers because most of them are knowledgeable but do not portray much wisdom. Wisdom is something I do get impressed by because it depicts the degree of an individual's ability to think. One noteworthy blogger, a fellow Google-lover and Leo, who had caught my attention over a year ago is Nirmala from Karnataka. There are so many ways to describe her. To put it simply, she is a true learner who not only knows how to learn but is able to inspire others to follow suit. She is creative, witty, zestful and the list goes on. I plan to have some of my postings of "tasty tidbits for thought" with references to her blog. Here we go.
Many years ago in a small Indian village, a farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a village moneylender. The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain. He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter. Both the farmer and his daughter were horrified by the proposal. So the cunning money-lender suggested that they let providence decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money bag. Then the girl would have to pick one pebble from the bag. If she picked the black pebble, she would become his wife and her father's debt would be forgiven. If she picked the white pebble she need not marry him and her father's debt would still be forgiven. But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into jail. All the villagers were standing on a pebble strewn path in the farmer's field. As they talked, the moneylender bent over to pick up two pebbles. As he picked them up, the sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two black pebbles and put them into the bag. He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag. Now, imagine you were standing in the field. What would you have done if you were the girl? If you had to advise her, what would you have told her?
Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:
1. The girl should refuse to take a pebble.
2. The girl should show that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.
3. The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and imprisonment.
Take a moment to ponder over the story. The above story is used with the hope that it will make us appreciate the difference between lateral and logical thinking. The girl's dilemma can not be solved with traditional logical thinking. Think of the consequences if she chooses the above logical answers. What would you recommend to the Girl to do? Well, what happened was that the girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles. "Oh, how clumsy of me," she said. "But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you will be able to tell which pebble I picked. "Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since the money-lender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what seemed an impossible situation into an extremely advantageous one.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Most complex problems do have a solution. It is only that we don't attempt to think.
Story taken from http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2004/11/nice-story.html#links
Many years ago in a small Indian village, a farmer had the misfortune of owing a large sum of money to a village moneylender. The moneylender, who was old and ugly, fancied the farmer's beautiful daughter. So he proposed a bargain. He said he would forgo the farmer's debt if he could marry his daughter. Both the farmer and his daughter were horrified by the proposal. So the cunning money-lender suggested that they let providence decide the matter. He told them that he would put a black pebble and a white pebble into an empty money bag. Then the girl would have to pick one pebble from the bag. If she picked the black pebble, she would become his wife and her father's debt would be forgiven. If she picked the white pebble she need not marry him and her father's debt would still be forgiven. But if she refused to pick a pebble, her father would be thrown into jail. All the villagers were standing on a pebble strewn path in the farmer's field. As they talked, the moneylender bent over to pick up two pebbles. As he picked them up, the sharp-eyed girl noticed that he had picked up two black pebbles and put them into the bag. He then asked the girl to pick a pebble from the bag. Now, imagine you were standing in the field. What would you have done if you were the girl? If you had to advise her, what would you have told her?
Careful analysis would produce three possibilities:
1. The girl should refuse to take a pebble.
2. The girl should show that there were two black pebbles in the bag and expose the money-lender as a cheat.
3. The girl should pick a black pebble and sacrifice herself in order to save her father from his debt and imprisonment.
Take a moment to ponder over the story. The above story is used with the hope that it will make us appreciate the difference between lateral and logical thinking. The girl's dilemma can not be solved with traditional logical thinking. Think of the consequences if she chooses the above logical answers. What would you recommend to the Girl to do? Well, what happened was that the girl put her hand into the moneybag and drew out a pebble. Without looking at it, she fumbled and let it fall onto the pebble-strewn path where it immediately became lost among all the other pebbles. "Oh, how clumsy of me," she said. "But never mind, if you look into the bag for the one that is left, you will be able to tell which pebble I picked. "Since the remaining pebble is black, it must be assumed that she had picked the white one. And since the money-lender dared not admit his dishonesty, the girl changed what seemed an impossible situation into an extremely advantageous one.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Most complex problems do have a solution. It is only that we don't attempt to think.
Story taken from http://nirmala-km.blogspot.com/2004/11/nice-story.html#links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)