My earlier post on Hinduism.
This series should take a lot of reading to even start. Well, where do I begin? This is a tough one. Explaining something also complex as Hinduism, I immediately start admiring the likes of Richard Feynman and one of my college professors (who explains complex laws by finding parallels between thermal engineering, mofussil buses and Indian buffaloes and what not... brilliantly talented teacher) If only I could give down-to-earth examples and real-life analogies like them...
Sanskrit is generally regarded as a difficult language. But no one from an acquaintance with Vedic or ordinary literary Sanskrit can have any idea of the difficulty of the logical and abstruse parts of Sanskrit philosophical literature. A person who can easily understand the Vedas, the Upanisads, the Puranas, the Law Books and the literary works, and is also well acquainted with European philosophical thought, may find it literally impossible to understand even small portions of a work of advanced Indian logic, or the dialectical Vedanta.
The problem is due to use of highly condensed technical expressions, and hidden allusions to other doctrines of the time. Having a Guru explain and elaborate the text is the only way to learn it. This might have helped the ancient Indians to keep the secret meanings from the undeserving and immature of people. In modern times, many greats seers have published elaborate documentation and commentary to these texts in hopes to revive the language(Sanskrit), the philosophies and the ideas of the time. Again I want to reiterate that I am no expert in any content I quote here. This is just my latest fling with something I want to know more about. I keep reading stuff and the present topic is Indian philosophy. All my writings here are from books, websites - may be re-worded. But all sources are either in public domain or old enough to be out of copyright (~100 yrs).
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Philosophy of Hinduism - A series
Planning a series on the worlds this most populous "way of life". Without going into the religious aspects of it, would try to cover some scientific and philosophical aspects of this great idea. Very few people know enough about the ancient Indian philosophies in the global arena. Even 90% of Indians don't know how versatile the concept of Hinduism is.
We think of ancient India, we think of math, astronomy, invention of zero, chess, extravagant use of gold, diamonds etc. Little do people read and write about the rich Indian ideas, intricate and complex philosophical thought, sound foundations, the open-architecture with which Hinduism embraces and appreciates newer practices, the various streams of Vedanta, Yoga, the thought process of why the things are the way they are. It may take a lifetime to even list down gists of all the philosophies of Hinduism, let alone learning them or mastering them. So I will try to just give an birds-eye view of the concepts here.
This is not anti-AnyOtherReligion, in-fact it is not even about religion, though I would try to compare and contrast philosophical differences. Hinduism is colossal in its continuity(>5000 yrs), withstanding the rise and fall of Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Christianity in India. More importantly it has let all these other religions thrive in India, while maintaining its own integrity and flavor.
We think of ancient India, we think of math, astronomy, invention of zero, chess, extravagant use of gold, diamonds etc. Little do people read and write about the rich Indian ideas, intricate and complex philosophical thought, sound foundations, the open-architecture with which Hinduism embraces and appreciates newer practices, the various streams of Vedanta, Yoga, the thought process of why the things are the way they are. It may take a lifetime to even list down gists of all the philosophies of Hinduism, let alone learning them or mastering them. So I will try to just give an birds-eye view of the concepts here.
This is not anti-AnyOtherReligion, in-fact it is not even about religion, though I would try to compare and contrast philosophical differences. Hinduism is colossal in its continuity(>5000 yrs), withstanding the rise and fall of Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Christianity in India. More importantly it has let all these other religions thrive in India, while maintaining its own integrity and flavor.
George Bernard Shaw
Another one of my most influencial writers. I like the radical and revolutionary. So here goes some of my favorite quotes from GBS.
- You see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream things as they never were and ask, "Why not?"
- All great truths begin as blasphemies.
- The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
- As long as I have a want, I have a reason for living. Satisfaction is death.
- The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
- The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- The secret of success is to offend the greatest number of people
- There is no love sincerer than the love of food
- War does not decide who is right but who is left.
- Shaw: Am reserving two seats for my show. Come bring a friend - if you have one. Winston Churchill: Impossible to be present for the first one. Will attend the second - if there is one.
- When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.
- People are always blaming circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them.
- Optimistic lies have such immense therapeutic value that a doctor who cannot tell them convincingly has mistaken his profession
- Death is for many of us the gate of hell; but we are inside on the way out, not outside on the way in.
- Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
- The novelties of one generation are only the resuscitated fashions of the generation before last.
- I have to live for others and not for myself; that's middle-class morality.
- Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth
- Animals are my friends ... and I don't eat my friends.
- Both optimists and pessimists contribute to society. The optimist invents the airplane, the pessimist invents the parachute
- America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between
- The only man I know who behaves sensibly is my tailor; he takes my measurements anew each time he sees me. The rest go on with their old measurements and expect me to fit them.
- What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child.
- The Indian way of life provides the vision of the natural, real way of life. We veil ourselves with unnatural masks. On the face of India are the tender expressions which carry the mark of the Creator's hand.
- The main difference between the opposition of Islam to Hinduism and the opposition between Protestant and Catholic is that the Catholic persecutes as fiercely as the Protestant when he has the power; but Hinduism cannot persecute, because all the Gods - and what goes deeper, the no Gods - are to be found in its Temples.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Legalizing live-in relationship - My thoughts
This court decision has created such a row. I am not against this rule, but would demand that a lot of polishing be done before the rule turns law. What exactly the court said is
1. A woman in a live-in relationship for a "reasonable long period" automatically gets the status of a wife (legally)
2. Such a woman can claim same rights like alimony etc on a break up.
This issue is controversial because it tests the cultural and moral fiber of every Indian. is OK to be afraid of commitments, it is also fine to try out many people before settling for special someone. But where do you decide to draw the line? Where do you put your foot down and say that my life partner should have this much sanctity or chastity when-and-after she/he marries me? Being open-minded is one thing, being law-less is quite another, the latter is very easy. The current age is such that any new idea finds immediate following - another "-ism" starts; people are proud to the called themselves so-and-so "-ists".
Living with anyone for any amount of time and quietly getting separated is not living. It is surviving - I don't see any major difference between such a human and an animal. One argument is that people who live-in are taking a step towards a marriage or may eventually get married - so why talk of a break-up or alimony got by the girl etc? Look at the positive side...
My answer: Initial flair in any relationship is exploring each others qualities, likes, dislikes etc. You are trying to get together and hence all you look for is common ground. As time goes on, you take for granted the "good" qualities and all that shows up are differences. The differences may even be complementary to your own shortcomings - but UNLESS there is a social necessity to stay together to explore those differences and compromise, the the general tendency is to move away. Why need a marriage, if you explore everything in it without actually getting married? What are you achieving that you are so proud of?
Some of the f*cked up legal and logical knots I could think of due to this new liberalization:
1. Law is clearly one sided. Girls are encouraged to actively look for short term relationships, without any real incentive to "settle down". In fact, the more breakups they have, more alimony they get! Poor Guys, they are actively discouraged from getting into a live-in situation!!
2. Extreme difficulty in proving a live-in relationship due to lack any official/government document linking the man and the woman before marriage.
3. Guys are assholes. They think with their d*cks. The term "reasonably long period" has to be precisely defined. Once it is defined too, they will start breaking off 1 day before the "reasonably long period".
4. Polygamy which is illegal by current law, would be legalized now, if this is applied to the already polygamous.
5. I am not calling any women as a prostitute. But actual prostitutes can use this loophole to legalize themselves as wife of someone. Hence prostitution indirectly becomes legal.
6. Any government document like ration card, child's birth certificate, passport, insurance etc which requires your marriage certificate cant be obtained. Till the "reasonably long period" you wont get a marriage certificate, till you get that, you can get the other documents - vicious cycle
7. There can be two first sons for a guy. One who is born the first married, or the one who is born first. Numerous civil disputes which are currently settled, would be re-opened.
8. Once the relationship of "Husband" or "Wife" reduces in importance, logically, kids will become unnecessary burden. Kids have to be grow up on their own till the court cases are settled on who is to support them.
9. One women can get alimony from two or more guys for life. (Man I should have taken birth as a girl in this country)
10. Imagine the social plight of orphaned kids, wives who cannot live with the shame of their husbands having other "legal" wives, number of legal cases and necessity for DNA testing etc.
Road to hell is laid with the best intentions. Same way, this law came in to protect the rural women who have been cheated by men who are already married - trying to provide them same legal rights etc. There is a fundamental flaw in our thinking which has to change. We assume that the female is a helpless, gullible, economically dependent, weaker sex. Some of them are. But this law will not help as much as it helps the educated folk, who can exploit its weakness.
We Indians have a knack of working the holes in the law and this new law is build with holes alone.
1. A woman in a live-in relationship for a "reasonable long period" automatically gets the status of a wife (legally)
2. Such a woman can claim same rights like alimony etc on a break up.
This issue is controversial because it tests the cultural and moral fiber of every Indian. is OK to be afraid of commitments, it is also fine to try out many people before settling for special someone. But where do you decide to draw the line? Where do you put your foot down and say that my life partner should have this much sanctity or chastity when-and-after she/he marries me? Being open-minded is one thing, being law-less is quite another, the latter is very easy. The current age is such that any new idea finds immediate following - another "-ism" starts; people are proud to the called themselves so-and-so "-ists".
Living with anyone for any amount of time and quietly getting separated is not living. It is surviving - I don't see any major difference between such a human and an animal. One argument is that people who live-in are taking a step towards a marriage or may eventually get married - so why talk of a break-up or alimony got by the girl etc? Look at the positive side...
My answer: Initial flair in any relationship is exploring each others qualities, likes, dislikes etc. You are trying to get together and hence all you look for is common ground. As time goes on, you take for granted the "good" qualities and all that shows up are differences. The differences may even be complementary to your own shortcomings - but UNLESS there is a social necessity to stay together to explore those differences and compromise, the the general tendency is to move away. Why need a marriage, if you explore everything in it without actually getting married? What are you achieving that you are so proud of?
Some of the f*cked up legal and logical knots I could think of due to this new liberalization:
1. Law is clearly one sided. Girls are encouraged to actively look for short term relationships, without any real incentive to "settle down". In fact, the more breakups they have, more alimony they get! Poor Guys, they are actively discouraged from getting into a live-in situation!!
2. Extreme difficulty in proving a live-in relationship due to lack any official/government document linking the man and the woman before marriage.
3. Guys are assholes. They think with their d*cks. The term "reasonably long period" has to be precisely defined. Once it is defined too, they will start breaking off 1 day before the "reasonably long period".
4. Polygamy which is illegal by current law, would be legalized now, if this is applied to the already polygamous.
5. I am not calling any women as a prostitute. But actual prostitutes can use this loophole to legalize themselves as wife of someone. Hence prostitution indirectly becomes legal.
6. Any government document like ration card, child's birth certificate, passport, insurance etc which requires your marriage certificate cant be obtained. Till the "reasonably long period" you wont get a marriage certificate, till you get that, you can get the other documents - vicious cycle
7. There can be two first sons for a guy. One who is born the first married, or the one who is born first. Numerous civil disputes which are currently settled, would be re-opened.
8. Once the relationship of "Husband" or "Wife" reduces in importance, logically, kids will become unnecessary burden. Kids have to be grow up on their own till the court cases are settled on who is to support them.
9. One women can get alimony from two or more guys for life. (Man I should have taken birth as a girl in this country)
10. Imagine the social plight of orphaned kids, wives who cannot live with the shame of their husbands having other "legal" wives, number of legal cases and necessity for DNA testing etc.
Road to hell is laid with the best intentions. Same way, this law came in to protect the rural women who have been cheated by men who are already married - trying to provide them same legal rights etc. There is a fundamental flaw in our thinking which has to change. We assume that the female is a helpless, gullible, economically dependent, weaker sex. Some of them are. But this law will not help as much as it helps the educated folk, who can exploit its weakness.
We Indians have a knack of working the holes in the law and this new law is build with holes alone.
Legalizing live-in relationships - Excerpts
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200810110384.htm
Some Good Comments from TOI:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinions/msid-3178050,curpg-1.cms
Samarasimha, Toronto, says: So let me get this straight, the state will tell you if u r considered married or not because u lived together? So you don't need any consent from the man or the woman? What is this, we are kids now that need the gov't to tell us how to live our lives?
N Anand, Hyderabad, says: Maintenance should be payable by either partner if the other walks out. This will ensure protection against exploitation. People should realize that the Hindu marriage does not require sanctification through Mantra's or mangalsutra. Manusmriti describes many forms of marriage. Gandharva Vivaha is a form of marriage where two consenting adults come together in conjugal relationship. You only have to look at Mahabharata for Arjun and Bheem's examples. Nobody stayed with his partner for long. The girl does not get anything except the father's name and gothra for the child. However, in modern times, maintenance will help complete breakdown of justice.
Awareness498a, NCR, says: No rights without marriage. Any girl can claim that she has been in a live-in relationship without even meeting the boy even once. Live-in can't be precisely defined or easily proved. No legal terrorism, please.
avi, Bangalore, says: Lets take some scenarios. 1. If a man has multiple livin-relationships, then multiple women can be given legal status of wife. Then why no make marriages with multiple wifes legal. 2.If a man has wife as well as mistress, then he cannot be charged for adultery as the mistress is now promoted to wife.
Khalid Khan, Bangalore, says: We have been aping everything that the west has been doing. Now comes the Institution of Marriage. India is a country dsepite all the different religions and cultures the sanctity of the institution of marriage is still intact. By giving this status we are encouraging live in relationships. what are we looking at in another 20 years is a nation of Kids at school where a law will be made that the NAME OF THE FATHER NOT BE ASKED.Should we not denounce this culture and work towards making the situation more conducive to the sacred institution of marriage rather than ransacking KFC and the like.
Pratap, New York, says: Dear Mr. Editor: Then what is the point of promoting a marriage institution. We should waste no time to abolish these institutions as it leads to wastage of resources too. Advantages of promoting Live-In relationships are: 1) Less Wastage of Resources, less marriage expenses. 2) No Dowry, no Divorces. 3) Private life. No objections. Free to do whatever one wants. 4) Free society. No emotional baggage. No commitment Disadvantages (or, More Advantages for some): 1) No extended family. 2) No need to have government to descipline society as everyone is self-desciplined now. 3) No Karwa Chauth, no navratris, 4) No wedding ring, no mangal-sutra. 4) More sell of goods such as Viagra. 5) Promiscuous society. And many more...... Happy go lucky world ?
Dinesh, USA, says: If the NCW is so concerned about women then it should pay maintenance from its budget. After all, WCD gets 33000 Crores ruppes per year for women welfare from the taxpayer money (82% are paid by men). Why should the men be treated like ATM? It is clear that NCW wants to break home, create chaos in the society by providing financial motivation to women It is sad that NCW and WCD are creating inhuman environment for men which will ultimately destroy the indian society which we are proud of so much.
BharathiKumar, Chennai, says: Character has become the first scapegoat for these findings of National Commission for Women.This is one of the evils of movies and teleserials where that character is assasinated and show the badwomen as paragon of virtue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
One interesting blog by Aquarius(Vineeta):
http://februarygirl.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/08/live-in-relationships-is-it-testing-the-waters-before.htm
A decade back when I was studying in Pune....the concept of live-in relationships had just started emerging. Many of my classmates were in one and few of those relationships eventually culminated into marriage.
There are conflicting views on this subject. Just today I was having a chat with "Shipra" a friend of mine who had no qualms about being in one. Her only condition was that both the partners should be unmarried and should be equally devoted to each other.
I beg to differ, I feel that a live in relationship takes away the zest and spice. In a marriage, its all about discovering new things about your life partner and even adjusting to it. Its a life long commitment.
In a live in relationship, I feel people are scared of commitments and so they need a testing period. The margin for error and tolerance levels are very low. They are already in doubt whether this relationship will work or not. These relationships are fragile. Most people enter into a Live -in relationship to test for compatibility or convenience. Studies have shown that people who Live-together before they marry have a higher tendency to get divorced.
A marriage gives so much of security to both partners. Both work towards making the relationship successful. There is stability and also financial security.
No strings attached is something which does not work for me. Test driving a relationship without the binding of commitment seems so pointless.
I feel that even though not all marriages end in happily- ever- after, the choice of going for a commitment like marriage in itself is a step towards lasting Happiness.
-----------------------------------------------------
Some comments:
Marriage is something more than relationship.The word Chastity or being faithful to each other is solemnised at the marriage function.
Until marriage one is only choosing (not yet chosen ) and both partners have freedom to break - it is not very desirable in the absence of commitment there won't be an element of sacrifice - or living your partner - an the relationship will be more of selfish nature.It has to start in a relationship and end in marriage then live in - this should be the order.May be I am a little old fashioned,but I want both partners to be safe and the children to know the name of both parents.
----------------
I would like to differ on this ...its better to breakup before marriage then after ..before only two people are hurt, afterwords...lots of them ..marriage is not btw two individuals its btw two families ..and if a kid comes in picture ..its more worse....
So it has to break ..it can break anytime ..before or after marriage ..marriage these days do not guarantee a life long endless commitment...and as such it should not ..if two ppl are not compatible ...then why to just stay together for the heck of it ...daily hurting each other ...
----------------
I don't know whether one should marry at all? To me it is rather an encroachment on my possibilities and freedom. I don't think I have tolerance for others short comings especially their baggages.
----------------
Some Good Comments from TOI:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinions/msid-3178050,curpg-1.cms
Samarasimha, Toronto, says: So let me get this straight, the state will tell you if u r considered married or not because u lived together? So you don't need any consent from the man or the woman? What is this, we are kids now that need the gov't to tell us how to live our lives?
N Anand, Hyderabad, says: Maintenance should be payable by either partner if the other walks out. This will ensure protection against exploitation. People should realize that the Hindu marriage does not require sanctification through Mantra's or mangalsutra. Manusmriti describes many forms of marriage. Gandharva Vivaha is a form of marriage where two consenting adults come together in conjugal relationship. You only have to look at Mahabharata for Arjun and Bheem's examples. Nobody stayed with his partner for long. The girl does not get anything except the father's name and gothra for the child. However, in modern times, maintenance will help complete breakdown of justice.
Awareness498a, NCR, says: No rights without marriage. Any girl can claim that she has been in a live-in relationship without even meeting the boy even once. Live-in can't be precisely defined or easily proved. No legal terrorism, please.
avi, Bangalore, says: Lets take some scenarios. 1. If a man has multiple livin-relationships, then multiple women can be given legal status of wife. Then why no make marriages with multiple wifes legal. 2.If a man has wife as well as mistress, then he cannot be charged for adultery as the mistress is now promoted to wife.
Khalid Khan, Bangalore, says: We have been aping everything that the west has been doing. Now comes the Institution of Marriage. India is a country dsepite all the different religions and cultures the sanctity of the institution of marriage is still intact. By giving this status we are encouraging live in relationships. what are we looking at in another 20 years is a nation of Kids at school where a law will be made that the NAME OF THE FATHER NOT BE ASKED.Should we not denounce this culture and work towards making the situation more conducive to the sacred institution of marriage rather than ransacking KFC and the like.
Pratap, New York, says: Dear Mr. Editor: Then what is the point of promoting a marriage institution. We should waste no time to abolish these institutions as it leads to wastage of resources too. Advantages of promoting Live-In relationships are: 1) Less Wastage of Resources, less marriage expenses. 2) No Dowry, no Divorces. 3) Private life. No objections. Free to do whatever one wants. 4) Free society. No emotional baggage. No commitment Disadvantages (or, More Advantages for some): 1) No extended family. 2) No need to have government to descipline society as everyone is self-desciplined now. 3) No Karwa Chauth, no navratris, 4) No wedding ring, no mangal-sutra. 4) More sell of goods such as Viagra. 5) Promiscuous society. And many more...... Happy go lucky world ?
Dinesh, USA, says: If the NCW is so concerned about women then it should pay maintenance from its budget. After all, WCD gets 33000 Crores ruppes per year for women welfare from the taxpayer money (82% are paid by men). Why should the men be treated like ATM? It is clear that NCW wants to break home, create chaos in the society by providing financial motivation to women It is sad that NCW and WCD are creating inhuman environment for men which will ultimately destroy the indian society which we are proud of so much.
BharathiKumar, Chennai, says: Character has become the first scapegoat for these findings of National Commission for Women.This is one of the evils of movies and teleserials where that character is assasinated and show the badwomen as paragon of virtue.
---------------------------------------------------------------
One interesting blog by Aquarius(Vineeta):
http://februarygirl.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/08/live-in-relationships-is-it-testing-the-waters-before.htm
A decade back when I was studying in Pune....the concept of live-in relationships had just started emerging. Many of my classmates were in one and few of those relationships eventually culminated into marriage.
There are conflicting views on this subject. Just today I was having a chat with "Shipra" a friend of mine who had no qualms about being in one. Her only condition was that both the partners should be unmarried and should be equally devoted to each other.
I beg to differ, I feel that a live in relationship takes away the zest and spice. In a marriage, its all about discovering new things about your life partner and even adjusting to it. Its a life long commitment.
In a live in relationship, I feel people are scared of commitments and so they need a testing period. The margin for error and tolerance levels are very low. They are already in doubt whether this relationship will work or not. These relationships are fragile. Most people enter into a Live -in relationship to test for compatibility or convenience. Studies have shown that people who Live-together before they marry have a higher tendency to get divorced.
A marriage gives so much of security to both partners. Both work towards making the relationship successful. There is stability and also financial security.
No strings attached is something which does not work for me. Test driving a relationship without the binding of commitment seems so pointless.
I feel that even though not all marriages end in happily- ever- after, the choice of going for a commitment like marriage in itself is a step towards lasting Happiness.
-----------------------------------------------------
Some comments:
Marriage is something more than relationship.The word Chastity or being faithful to each other is solemnised at the marriage function.
Until marriage one is only choosing (not yet chosen ) and both partners have freedom to break - it is not very desirable in the absence of commitment there won't be an element of sacrifice - or living your partner - an the relationship will be more of selfish nature.It has to start in a relationship and end in marriage then live in - this should be the order.May be I am a little old fashioned,but I want both partners to be safe and the children to know the name of both parents.
----------------
I would like to differ on this ...its better to breakup before marriage then after ..before only two people are hurt, afterwords...lots of them ..marriage is not btw two individuals its btw two families ..and if a kid comes in picture ..its more worse....
So it has to break ..it can break anytime ..before or after marriage ..marriage these days do not guarantee a life long endless commitment...and as such it should not ..if two ppl are not compatible ...then why to just stay together for the heck of it ...daily hurting each other ...
----------------
I don't know whether one should marry at all? To me it is rather an encroachment on my possibilities and freedom. I don't think I have tolerance for others short comings especially their baggages.
----------------
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)