Saturday, August 22, 2015
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Best way to manage your stress....
What is stress management?
We all respond to stress differently so there’s no “one size fits all” solution to managing stress. But if you feel like the stress in your life is out of control, it’s time to take action. Stress management can teach you healthier ways to cope with stress, help you reduce its harmful effects, and prevent stress from spiraling out of control again in the future.No matter how powerless you may feel in the face of stress, you still have control over your lifestyle, thoughts, emotions, and the way you deal with problems. Stress management involves changing the stressful situation when you can, changing your reaction when you can’t, taking care of yourself, and making time for rest and relaxation. The first step is to recognize the true sources of stress in your life.
What are the sources of stress in your life?
It’s easy to identify sources of stress following a major life event
such as changing jobs, moving home, or losing a loved one, but
pinpointing the sources of everyday stress can be more complicated. It’s
all too easy to overlook your own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
that are contributing to your stress levels. Sure, you may know that
you’re constantly worried about work deadlines, but maybe it’s your
procrastination, rather than the actual job demands, that is causing the
stress.
To identify your true sources of stress, look closely at your habits, attitude, and excuses:- Do you explain away stress as temporary (“I just have a million things going on right now”) even though you can’t remember the last time you took a breather?
- Do you define stress as an integral part of your work or home life (“Things are always crazy around here”) or as a part of your personality (“I have a lot of nervous energy, that’s all”).
- Do you blame your stress on other people or outside events, or view it as entirely normal and unexceptional?
How do you currently cope with stress?
hink about the ways you currently manage and cope with stress in your
life. Your stress journal can help you identify them. Are your coping
strategies healthy or unhealthy, helpful or unproductive? Unfortunately,
many people cope with stress in ways that compound the problem.
Unhealthy ways of coping with stress
These coping strategies may temporarily reduce stress, but they cause more damage in the long run:
|
|
Learning healthier ways to manage stress
If your methods of coping with stress aren’t contributing to your greater emotional and physical health, it’s time to find healthier ones. No single method works for everyone or in every situation, so experiment with different techniques and strategies. Focus on what makes you feel calm and in control.greatness of Sanatana dharma
Our
religion has a number of unique or distinctive features. One of
them is what is called the theory of karma, though this theory is
common to religions like Buddhism which are offshoots of
Hinduism.
What is the karma doctrine? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is an ineluctable law of physics governing cause and effect, action and reaction. This law pertaining to physical phenomena our forefathers applied to human life. The cosmos includes not only sentient beings endowed with consciousness but also countless insentient objects. Together they constitute worldly life. The laws, the dharma, proper to the first order must apply to the second also. According to the karma theory, every action of a man has an effect corresponding to it. Based on this belief our religion declares that, if a man commits a sin, he shall pay the penalty for it. Also if his act is a virtuous one, he shall reap the benefits thereof.
Our religion further asserts that one is born again and again so as to experience the consequences of one's good and bad action. "Do good. " "Do not do evil, " such are the exhortations of all religions. But Hinduism (and its offshoots) alone lay stress on the cause-and -effect connection. No religion originating in countries outside India subscribes to the cause-and-effect connection, nor to the reincarnation theory as one of its articles of faith. Indeed religions originating abroad hold beliefs contrary to this theory and strongly oppose the view that man is born again and again in order to exhaust his karma. They believe that a man has only one birth, that when his soul departs on his death it dwells somewhere awaiting the day of judgment. On this day God makes an assessment of his good and bad actions and, on the basis of it, rewards him with eternal paradise or sentences him to eternal damnation.
Some years ago, a well-known writer from Europe came to see me nowadays you see many white men coming to the Matha. This gentleman told me that the Bible stated more than once that God is love. He could not reconcile this with the belief that God condemns a sinner to eternal damnation without affording him an opportunity for redemption. On this point a parade had told him: "It is true that there is an eternal hell. But it is eternally vacant. "
The padre's statement is difficult to accept. Let us suppose that the Lord in his compassion does not condemn a sinner to hell. Where then does he send his soul? Since, according to Christianity, there is no rebirth the sinner is not made to be born again. So he too must be rewarded with heaven (as much as the virtuous man). This means that we may merrily keep sinning without any fear of punishment. After all, God will reward all of us with heaven. This belief implies that there is no need for morality and truthfulness.
According to our religion too, Isvara who decides our fate after death on the basis of our karma is infinitely merciful. But, at the same time, he does not plunge the world in adharma, in unrighteousness- that is not how his compassion manifests itself. What does he do then? He gives us another birth, another opportunity to reap the fruits of our good and bad action. The joys of heaven and the torments of hell truly belong to this world itself. The sorrow and happiness that are our lot in our present birth are in proportion to the virtuous and evil deeds of our past birth. Those who sinned much suffer much now and, similarly, those who did much good enjoy much happiness now. The majority is made up of people who know more sorrow than happiness and people who experience sorrow and happiness almost in equal measure. There are indeed very few blessed with utter happiness. It is evident from this that most of us must have done more evil than good in our past birth.
In His mercy the Lord gives us every time a fresh opportunity to wash away our sins. The guru, the sastras, and the temples are all his gifts to wipe away our inner impurities. That Isvara, in his compassion, places his trust even in a sinner confident that he will raise himself through his own efforts and gives him a fresh opportunity in the form of another birth to advance himself inwardly- is not such a belief better than that he should dismiss a sinner as good for nothing and yet reward him with heaven? If a man sincerely believes, in a spirit of surrender, there is nothing that he can do on his own and that everything is the Lord's doing, he will be redeemed and elevated. But it is one thing for God to bless a man who goes to him for refuge forsaking his own efforts to raise himself and quite another to bless him thinking him to be not fit to make any exertions on his own to advance inwardly. So long as we believe in such a thing as human endeavour we should think that Isvara's supreme compassion lies in trusting a man to go forward spiritually through his own efforts. It is in this way that the Lord's true grace is manifested.
That God does not condemn anyone to eternal punishment in hell is the personal opinion of a particular padre. It cannot be said that all religions like Christianity which believe that a man has only one birth agree with this view. They believe that God awards a man hell or paradise according to the good or evil he has done in one single birth. Since sinners who deserve to be condemned to hell predominate, the day of judgment has come to be known by the terrible name of doomsday. Here we have a concept according to which the Lord's compassion seems to be circumscribed.
There is strong evidence to support the reincarnation theory. A lady from the West came to see me one day and asked me if there was any proof of reincarnation. I did not have any discussion with her on the subject. Instead, I asked her to visit the local obstetric hospital and find out all about the children born there. There was a learned man who knew English where we were camping then. I asked him to accompany the lady. Later, on their return from the hospital, I asked the woman about her impressions of the new- born children. She said that she had found one child plump and lusty, another skinny; one beautiful and another ungainly. One child was born in a comfortable ward [that is to a well-to-do mother] and another to a poor mother.
"Leave aside the question of God consigning a man to eternal hell after his death, " I said to the foreign lady. "We are not witness to such a phenomenon. But now you have seen with your own eyes how differently the children are born in the hospital that you visited. How would you account for the differences? Why should one child be born rich and another poor? Why should one be healthy and another sickly? And why should one be good-looking and another not so good looking?
"If you accept the doctrine that men are born only once, you cannot but from the impression that God is neither compassionate nor impartial- think of all the differences at birth- and that he functions erratically and unwisely. How are we to be devoted to such a God and have the faith that he will look on us with mercy? How are we to account for the differences between one being and another if we do not accept the doctrine that our life now is determined by the good and the bad we did in our past births. " The lady from the West accepted my explanation.
Such an explanation is not, however, good enough for people in modern times. They demand scientific proof of reincarnation. Parapsychologists have done considerable research in the subject and their findings are in favour of the theory of rebirth. During the studies conducted in various parts of the world they encountered people who remembered their past lives. The latter recalled places and people they had seen in their previous birth-places and people that have nothing to do with them now. The parapsychologists verified these facts and to their amazement found them to be true. The cases investigated by them were numerous. Most of us are wholly unaware of our past lives, but some do remember them. According to the researchers the majority of such people had been victims of accidents or murder in their previous lives.
The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord- avataras- is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets. It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Isvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma. It is to live out his karma- to experience the fruits of his actions- that man is born again and again. But in birth after birth, instead of washing away his old karma, he adds more and more to the mud sticking to him.
If the Lord descends to earth again and again it is to lift up man and show him the righteous path. When unrighteousness gains the upper hand and righteousness declines, he descends to earth to destroy unrighteousness and to establish righteousness again- and to protect the virtuous and destroy the wicked. Sri Krsna Paramatman declares so in the Gita.
Isvara is to be known in different states. That the Lord is all- that all is the Lord- is a state that we cannot easily comprehend. Then there is a state mentioned in the "vibhuti yoga"of Gita according to which the Lord dwells in the highest of each category, in the "most excellent" of things. To create the highest of excellence in human life he sends messengers to earth in the guise of preceptors (acaryas), men of wisdom and enlightenment (jnanins), yogins and devotees. This is another state in which God is to be known. Not satisfied with the previous states, he assumes yet another state: he descends to earth as an avatara. The word "avatarana" itself means "descent". Isvara is "paratpara", that is "higher than the highest", "beyond what is beyond everything". Yet he descends to earth by being born in our midst to re-establish dharma.
Sindhanta Saivas do not subscribe to the view of Siva having avataras. Nor they agree with the belief that Adi Sankara and Jnanasambandhar were incarnations of Siva and Muruga (Subrahmanya) respectively. Their view is that if Isvara dwells in a human womb, in a body of flesh, he makes himself impure. According to Advaitins even all those who inhabit the human womb made up of flesh are in substance nothing but the Brahman. They see nothing improper in the Lord coming down to earth.
All Vaisnavas, without exception, accept the doctrine of divine avataras. Philosophically speaking, there are many points of agreement between Vaisnavas and Saivas though the former are not altogether in agreement with the view that it is the Brahman itself that is expressed as the individual self. When we speak of the avataras, we generally mean the ten incarnations of Visnu. Vaisnavas adhere to the doctrine of avataras because the believe that Visnu descends to earth to uplift humanity. Indeed it is because of his boundless compassion that he makes himself small [or reduces himself] to any degree. In truth, however, the Lord is neither reduces nor tainted a bit in any of his incarnations because, though in outward guise he looks a mortal, he knows himself to be what in reality he is.
Altogether the Vedic dharma that is Hinduism accepts the concepts the concept of incarnations of the Lord. Saivas too are one with Vaisnavas in believing in the ten incarnations of Visnu.
That the one and only Paramatman who has neither a form nor attributes is manifested as different forms with attributes is another special feature of our religion. We worship idols representing these forms of deities. For this reason others label us polytheists. There view is utterly wrong. Because we worship the one God, the one reality, in many different forms it does not mean that we believe in many gods. It is equally absurd to call us idolaters who hold that the idol we worship is God. Hindus with a proper understanding of their religion do not think that the idol alone is God. The idol is meant for the worshipper to offer one-pointed devotion and he adores it with the conviction that the Lord who is present everywhere is present in it also. We see that practitioners of other religions also have symbols for worship and meditation. So it is wholly unjust to believe that Hindus alone worship idols- to regard them with scorn as idolaters is not right.
That ours is the only religion that does not proclaim that its followers have an exclusive right to salvation is a matter of pride for us Hindus. Our catholic outlook is revealed in our scriptures which declare that whatever the religious path followed by people they will finally attain the same Paramatman. That is why there is no place for conversion in Hinduism.
Christianity has it that, if a man does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, he shall be condemned to hell. Islam says the same about those who do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. We must not be angry with the adherents of either religion on that score. Let us take it that Christians and Muslims alike believe that followers of other religions do not have the same sense of fulfillment as they have. So let us presume that it is with good intentions that they want to bring others into their fold (Christianity or Islam as the case may be) out of a desire to help them.
Let us also assume that if they resort to means that seem undesirable, it is to achieve what they think to be a good objective, luring others into their faith. It was thus that they carried out conversions in the past, by force of arms. Islam, particularly, expanded its sway in this way. It is often said that Christianity spread with the help of money power. But Christians also used their army to gain adherent, though with the force of arms was associated the philanthropic work of the missionaries. White men had the advantage of money that the Muslims of the Arabian desert did not possess. Christian missionaries built schools, hospitals and so on to induce the poor to embrace their faith.
We may not approve of people being forced into a religion or of conversions carried out by temptations placed before them. But we need not for that reason doubt that those who spread their religion in this fashion really believe that their work will bring general well-being.
We cannot, however, help asking whether their belief is right. People who do not follow either Christ or the Prophet, are they really condemned to hell? A little thinking should show that the belief that the followers of Christianity or Islam have an exclusive right to salvation cannot be sustained. It is only some 2, 000 years since Jesus was born and only about 1, 400 years or so since the birth of the Prophet. What happened to all the people born before them since creation? Are we to believe that they must have passed into hell? We are also compelled to infer that even the forefathers of the founders of Christianity and Islam would not have earned paradise. If, like Hindus, all those who lived before Christ or the Prophet had believed in rebirth, we could concede that they would have been saved: they would have been again and again until the arrival of Christ or the Prophet and then afforded the opportunity of following their teachings. But if we accept the logic of Christianity and Islam, according to which religions there is no rebirth, we shall have to conclude that hundreds of millions of people for countless generations must have been consigned to eternal hell.
The question arises as to whether God is so merciless as to keep dispatching people for ages together to the hell from which there is no escape. Were he compassionate would he not have sent, during all this time, a messenger of his or a teacher to show humanity the way to liberation? Why should we worship a God who has no mercy? Or for that matter, why should there be any religion at all?
The countries are many and they have different climates and grow different crops. Also each part of the world has evolved a different culture. But the Vedas encompassed lands all over this planet from the very beginning. Latter other religions emerged in keeping with the changing attitudes of the nations concerned. That is why aspects of the Vedic tradition are in evidence not only in the religions now in force but in what we know of those preceding them. But in India alone has Hinduism survived as a full-fledged living faith.
It must also be added that this primeval religion has regarded- and still regards- with respect the religions that arose subsequent to it. The Hindu views is this: "Other religions must have evolved according to the degree of maturity of the people among whom they originated. They will bring well being to their adherents. " "Live and let live" has been and continues to be the ideal of our religion. It has given birth to religions like Buddhism and Jainism and they [particularly Buddhism] have been propagated abroad for the Atmic advancement of the people there.
I have spoken about the special characteristics of Hinduism from the philosophical and theological points of view. But it has also another important feature which is also distinctive- the sociological.
All religions have their own philosophical and theological systems. Also all of them deal with individual life and conduct and, to a limited extent, with social life. "Look upon your neighbour as your brother. " "Regard your adversary as your friend. " Treat others in the same way as you would like to be treated yourself. " "Be kind to all creatures. " "Speak the truth. " "Practice non-violence. " These injunctions and rules of conduct relate to social life up to a point- and only up to a point. To religions other than Hinduism social life or the structure of society is not a major concern. Hinduism alone has a sturdy sociological foundation, and its special feature, "varnasrama dharma", is an expression of it.
Varna dharma is one and asrama dharma is another (together they make up varnsrama dharma). Asrama dharma deals with the conduct of an individual during different stages of his life. In the first stage, as a brahmacarins, he devotes himself to studies in a gurukulas. In the second stage, as a youth, he takes a wife, settles down in life and begets children. In the third, as he ages further, he becomes a forest recluse and, without much attachment to worldly life, engages himself in Vedic karma. In the forth stage, he forsakes even Vedic works, renounces the word utterly to become a sannyasin and turns his mind towards the Paramatman. These four stages of life or asramas are called brahmacarya, garhasthya, vanaprastha and sannyasa.
Varna dharma is an "arrangement" governing all society. It is very much a target of attack today and is usually spoken of as the division of society into "jatis". But "varna" and "jati" are in fact different. There are only four varnas but the jatis are numerous. For instance, in the same varna there are Ayyars, Ayyangars, Roas, etc - these are jatis. Mudaliars, Pillais, Reddiars and Naikkars are jatis belonging to another varna. In the Yajurveda (third astaka, fourth prasna) and in the Dhamasastra a number of jatis are mentioned- but you do not meet with them today.
Critics of Varna dharma brand it as "a blot on our religion" as "a vicious system which divides people into high and low". But, if you look at it impartially, you will realize that it is a unique instrument to bring about orderly and harmonious social life.
What is the karma doctrine? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. There is an ineluctable law of physics governing cause and effect, action and reaction. This law pertaining to physical phenomena our forefathers applied to human life. The cosmos includes not only sentient beings endowed with consciousness but also countless insentient objects. Together they constitute worldly life. The laws, the dharma, proper to the first order must apply to the second also. According to the karma theory, every action of a man has an effect corresponding to it. Based on this belief our religion declares that, if a man commits a sin, he shall pay the penalty for it. Also if his act is a virtuous one, he shall reap the benefits thereof.
Our religion further asserts that one is born again and again so as to experience the consequences of one's good and bad action. "Do good. " "Do not do evil, " such are the exhortations of all religions. But Hinduism (and its offshoots) alone lay stress on the cause-and -effect connection. No religion originating in countries outside India subscribes to the cause-and-effect connection, nor to the reincarnation theory as one of its articles of faith. Indeed religions originating abroad hold beliefs contrary to this theory and strongly oppose the view that man is born again and again in order to exhaust his karma. They believe that a man has only one birth, that when his soul departs on his death it dwells somewhere awaiting the day of judgment. On this day God makes an assessment of his good and bad actions and, on the basis of it, rewards him with eternal paradise or sentences him to eternal damnation.
Some years ago, a well-known writer from Europe came to see me nowadays you see many white men coming to the Matha. This gentleman told me that the Bible stated more than once that God is love. He could not reconcile this with the belief that God condemns a sinner to eternal damnation without affording him an opportunity for redemption. On this point a parade had told him: "It is true that there is an eternal hell. But it is eternally vacant. "
The padre's statement is difficult to accept. Let us suppose that the Lord in his compassion does not condemn a sinner to hell. Where then does he send his soul? Since, according to Christianity, there is no rebirth the sinner is not made to be born again. So he too must be rewarded with heaven (as much as the virtuous man). This means that we may merrily keep sinning without any fear of punishment. After all, God will reward all of us with heaven. This belief implies that there is no need for morality and truthfulness.
According to our religion too, Isvara who decides our fate after death on the basis of our karma is infinitely merciful. But, at the same time, he does not plunge the world in adharma, in unrighteousness- that is not how his compassion manifests itself. What does he do then? He gives us another birth, another opportunity to reap the fruits of our good and bad action. The joys of heaven and the torments of hell truly belong to this world itself. The sorrow and happiness that are our lot in our present birth are in proportion to the virtuous and evil deeds of our past birth. Those who sinned much suffer much now and, similarly, those who did much good enjoy much happiness now. The majority is made up of people who know more sorrow than happiness and people who experience sorrow and happiness almost in equal measure. There are indeed very few blessed with utter happiness. It is evident from this that most of us must have done more evil than good in our past birth.
In His mercy the Lord gives us every time a fresh opportunity to wash away our sins. The guru, the sastras, and the temples are all his gifts to wipe away our inner impurities. That Isvara, in his compassion, places his trust even in a sinner confident that he will raise himself through his own efforts and gives him a fresh opportunity in the form of another birth to advance himself inwardly- is not such a belief better than that he should dismiss a sinner as good for nothing and yet reward him with heaven? If a man sincerely believes, in a spirit of surrender, there is nothing that he can do on his own and that everything is the Lord's doing, he will be redeemed and elevated. But it is one thing for God to bless a man who goes to him for refuge forsaking his own efforts to raise himself and quite another to bless him thinking him to be not fit to make any exertions on his own to advance inwardly. So long as we believe in such a thing as human endeavour we should think that Isvara's supreme compassion lies in trusting a man to go forward spiritually through his own efforts. It is in this way that the Lord's true grace is manifested.
That God does not condemn anyone to eternal punishment in hell is the personal opinion of a particular padre. It cannot be said that all religions like Christianity which believe that a man has only one birth agree with this view. They believe that God awards a man hell or paradise according to the good or evil he has done in one single birth. Since sinners who deserve to be condemned to hell predominate, the day of judgment has come to be known by the terrible name of doomsday. Here we have a concept according to which the Lord's compassion seems to be circumscribed.
There is strong evidence to support the reincarnation theory. A lady from the West came to see me one day and asked me if there was any proof of reincarnation. I did not have any discussion with her on the subject. Instead, I asked her to visit the local obstetric hospital and find out all about the children born there. There was a learned man who knew English where we were camping then. I asked him to accompany the lady. Later, on their return from the hospital, I asked the woman about her impressions of the new- born children. She said that she had found one child plump and lusty, another skinny; one beautiful and another ungainly. One child was born in a comfortable ward [that is to a well-to-do mother] and another to a poor mother.
"Leave aside the question of God consigning a man to eternal hell after his death, " I said to the foreign lady. "We are not witness to such a phenomenon. But now you have seen with your own eyes how differently the children are born in the hospital that you visited. How would you account for the differences? Why should one child be born rich and another poor? Why should one be healthy and another sickly? And why should one be good-looking and another not so good looking?
"If you accept the doctrine that men are born only once, you cannot but from the impression that God is neither compassionate nor impartial- think of all the differences at birth- and that he functions erratically and unwisely. How are we to be devoted to such a God and have the faith that he will look on us with mercy? How are we to account for the differences between one being and another if we do not accept the doctrine that our life now is determined by the good and the bad we did in our past births. " The lady from the West accepted my explanation.
Such an explanation is not, however, good enough for people in modern times. They demand scientific proof of reincarnation. Parapsychologists have done considerable research in the subject and their findings are in favour of the theory of rebirth. During the studies conducted in various parts of the world they encountered people who remembered their past lives. The latter recalled places and people they had seen in their previous birth-places and people that have nothing to do with them now. The parapsychologists verified these facts and to their amazement found them to be true. The cases investigated by them were numerous. Most of us are wholly unaware of our past lives, but some do remember them. According to the researchers the majority of such people had been victims of accidents or murder in their previous lives.
The doctrine of the incarnations of the Lord- avataras- is another unique feature of our religion. The Reality (Sadvastu) is one. That It manifests itself as countless beings is one of our cardinal tenets. It follows that it is this one and only Reality that transforms itself again and again into all those beings that are subject to birth and death. Also it is the same Reality that is manifested as Isvara to protect this world of sentient beings and insentient objects. Unlike humans he is not subject to the law of karma. It is to live out his karma- to experience the fruits of his actions- that man is born again and again. But in birth after birth, instead of washing away his old karma, he adds more and more to the mud sticking to him.
If the Lord descends to earth again and again it is to lift up man and show him the righteous path. When unrighteousness gains the upper hand and righteousness declines, he descends to earth to destroy unrighteousness and to establish righteousness again- and to protect the virtuous and destroy the wicked. Sri Krsna Paramatman declares so in the Gita.
Isvara is to be known in different states. That the Lord is all- that all is the Lord- is a state that we cannot easily comprehend. Then there is a state mentioned in the "vibhuti yoga"of Gita according to which the Lord dwells in the highest of each category, in the "most excellent" of things. To create the highest of excellence in human life he sends messengers to earth in the guise of preceptors (acaryas), men of wisdom and enlightenment (jnanins), yogins and devotees. This is another state in which God is to be known. Not satisfied with the previous states, he assumes yet another state: he descends to earth as an avatara. The word "avatarana" itself means "descent". Isvara is "paratpara", that is "higher than the highest", "beyond what is beyond everything". Yet he descends to earth by being born in our midst to re-establish dharma.
Sindhanta Saivas do not subscribe to the view of Siva having avataras. Nor they agree with the belief that Adi Sankara and Jnanasambandhar were incarnations of Siva and Muruga (Subrahmanya) respectively. Their view is that if Isvara dwells in a human womb, in a body of flesh, he makes himself impure. According to Advaitins even all those who inhabit the human womb made up of flesh are in substance nothing but the Brahman. They see nothing improper in the Lord coming down to earth.
All Vaisnavas, without exception, accept the doctrine of divine avataras. Philosophically speaking, there are many points of agreement between Vaisnavas and Saivas though the former are not altogether in agreement with the view that it is the Brahman itself that is expressed as the individual self. When we speak of the avataras, we generally mean the ten incarnations of Visnu. Vaisnavas adhere to the doctrine of avataras because the believe that Visnu descends to earth to uplift humanity. Indeed it is because of his boundless compassion that he makes himself small [or reduces himself] to any degree. In truth, however, the Lord is neither reduces nor tainted a bit in any of his incarnations because, though in outward guise he looks a mortal, he knows himself to be what in reality he is.
Altogether the Vedic dharma that is Hinduism accepts the concepts the concept of incarnations of the Lord. Saivas too are one with Vaisnavas in believing in the ten incarnations of Visnu.
That the one and only Paramatman who has neither a form nor attributes is manifested as different forms with attributes is another special feature of our religion. We worship idols representing these forms of deities. For this reason others label us polytheists. There view is utterly wrong. Because we worship the one God, the one reality, in many different forms it does not mean that we believe in many gods. It is equally absurd to call us idolaters who hold that the idol we worship is God. Hindus with a proper understanding of their religion do not think that the idol alone is God. The idol is meant for the worshipper to offer one-pointed devotion and he adores it with the conviction that the Lord who is present everywhere is present in it also. We see that practitioners of other religions also have symbols for worship and meditation. So it is wholly unjust to believe that Hindus alone worship idols- to regard them with scorn as idolaters is not right.
That ours is the only religion that does not proclaim that its followers have an exclusive right to salvation is a matter of pride for us Hindus. Our catholic outlook is revealed in our scriptures which declare that whatever the religious path followed by people they will finally attain the same Paramatman. That is why there is no place for conversion in Hinduism.
Christianity has it that, if a man does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, he shall be condemned to hell. Islam says the same about those who do not follow the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. We must not be angry with the adherents of either religion on that score. Let us take it that Christians and Muslims alike believe that followers of other religions do not have the same sense of fulfillment as they have. So let us presume that it is with good intentions that they want to bring others into their fold (Christianity or Islam as the case may be) out of a desire to help them.
Let us also assume that if they resort to means that seem undesirable, it is to achieve what they think to be a good objective, luring others into their faith. It was thus that they carried out conversions in the past, by force of arms. Islam, particularly, expanded its sway in this way. It is often said that Christianity spread with the help of money power. But Christians also used their army to gain adherent, though with the force of arms was associated the philanthropic work of the missionaries. White men had the advantage of money that the Muslims of the Arabian desert did not possess. Christian missionaries built schools, hospitals and so on to induce the poor to embrace their faith.
We may not approve of people being forced into a religion or of conversions carried out by temptations placed before them. But we need not for that reason doubt that those who spread their religion in this fashion really believe that their work will bring general well-being.
We cannot, however, help asking whether their belief is right. People who do not follow either Christ or the Prophet, are they really condemned to hell? A little thinking should show that the belief that the followers of Christianity or Islam have an exclusive right to salvation cannot be sustained. It is only some 2, 000 years since Jesus was born and only about 1, 400 years or so since the birth of the Prophet. What happened to all the people born before them since creation? Are we to believe that they must have passed into hell? We are also compelled to infer that even the forefathers of the founders of Christianity and Islam would not have earned paradise. If, like Hindus, all those who lived before Christ or the Prophet had believed in rebirth, we could concede that they would have been saved: they would have been again and again until the arrival of Christ or the Prophet and then afforded the opportunity of following their teachings. But if we accept the logic of Christianity and Islam, according to which religions there is no rebirth, we shall have to conclude that hundreds of millions of people for countless generations must have been consigned to eternal hell.
The question arises as to whether God is so merciless as to keep dispatching people for ages together to the hell from which there is no escape. Were he compassionate would he not have sent, during all this time, a messenger of his or a teacher to show humanity the way to liberation? Why should we worship a God who has no mercy? Or for that matter, why should there be any religion at all?
The countries are many and they have different climates and grow different crops. Also each part of the world has evolved a different culture. But the Vedas encompassed lands all over this planet from the very beginning. Latter other religions emerged in keeping with the changing attitudes of the nations concerned. That is why aspects of the Vedic tradition are in evidence not only in the religions now in force but in what we know of those preceding them. But in India alone has Hinduism survived as a full-fledged living faith.
It must also be added that this primeval religion has regarded- and still regards- with respect the religions that arose subsequent to it. The Hindu views is this: "Other religions must have evolved according to the degree of maturity of the people among whom they originated. They will bring well being to their adherents. " "Live and let live" has been and continues to be the ideal of our religion. It has given birth to religions like Buddhism and Jainism and they [particularly Buddhism] have been propagated abroad for the Atmic advancement of the people there.
I have spoken about the special characteristics of Hinduism from the philosophical and theological points of view. But it has also another important feature which is also distinctive- the sociological.
All religions have their own philosophical and theological systems. Also all of them deal with individual life and conduct and, to a limited extent, with social life. "Look upon your neighbour as your brother. " "Regard your adversary as your friend. " Treat others in the same way as you would like to be treated yourself. " "Be kind to all creatures. " "Speak the truth. " "Practice non-violence. " These injunctions and rules of conduct relate to social life up to a point- and only up to a point. To religions other than Hinduism social life or the structure of society is not a major concern. Hinduism alone has a sturdy sociological foundation, and its special feature, "varnasrama dharma", is an expression of it.
Varna dharma is one and asrama dharma is another (together they make up varnsrama dharma). Asrama dharma deals with the conduct of an individual during different stages of his life. In the first stage, as a brahmacarins, he devotes himself to studies in a gurukulas. In the second stage, as a youth, he takes a wife, settles down in life and begets children. In the third, as he ages further, he becomes a forest recluse and, without much attachment to worldly life, engages himself in Vedic karma. In the forth stage, he forsakes even Vedic works, renounces the word utterly to become a sannyasin and turns his mind towards the Paramatman. These four stages of life or asramas are called brahmacarya, garhasthya, vanaprastha and sannyasa.
Varna dharma is an "arrangement" governing all society. It is very much a target of attack today and is usually spoken of as the division of society into "jatis". But "varna" and "jati" are in fact different. There are only four varnas but the jatis are numerous. For instance, in the same varna there are Ayyars, Ayyangars, Roas, etc - these are jatis. Mudaliars, Pillais, Reddiars and Naikkars are jatis belonging to another varna. In the Yajurveda (third astaka, fourth prasna) and in the Dhamasastra a number of jatis are mentioned- but you do not meet with them today.
Critics of Varna dharma brand it as "a blot on our religion" as "a vicious system which divides people into high and low". But, if you look at it impartially, you will realize that it is a unique instrument to bring about orderly and harmonious social life.
Experience of Russian Indologist with Paramacharya...
Dr. S.I. Tulaev, Russian Indologist of distinction, was visibly moved
when he met His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya Svamigal of Kanchi Kamakoti
Peetha on 24-2-1965 near Sunkuvar Chatram about forty miles from Madras.
His Holiness at the first instance made kind enquiries about Dr. Tulaev's studies.
Dr. Tulaev: Sir, I am very much thankful to Your Holiness for having kindly given me the audience. I will not take much of Your Holiness time. I shall ask you only two questions. Sir could you kindly oblige me? The first is this: A man has no belief in religion He does not adopt any rituals, never goes to the temple or church, does not need any dogmas. But he always thinks good and does good throughout his life. Could you kindly tell me, Sir, whether such a man has any salvation at the end of his life?
His Holiness closed his eyes and was in meditation for a few seconds. The whole surrounding was absolutely calm, divinely calm. After the divinely pause, His Holiness replies `Yes'.
At this answer, Dr. Tulaev was overwhelmed with joy, a joy that he never experienced in life and for which his heart was longing all these years. He looked as if he has attained the unattainable. He whispered, `I thank you Sir, I thank you Sir, I thank you. I am satisfied'
His Holiness : (enlarging His answer) Do not think that I am giving you this answer after seeing the modern standards of life. No. This is said in our ancient scripture themselves. There are many aspirants. The Agnostics, those who enquire into the concept of God and by using their own brain, come to the conclusion that there is no God. Secondly there are the Buddhists, especially the Sunyavadins, who believe in non-existence. Thirdly the Jains, who believe in suffering by putting their body to various austerities, vratas. Fourthly, Saivaites, Aishnavites and others who believe in a personal God and spend their life in devotion; and lastly; the Advaitins who believe that the entire world, the cosmic reality is the apparent manifestation of one and the same ultimate Reality. All these aspirants get near the truth. the difference between them lies in their proximity to God. Step by step these five aspirants are neared the Reality. If one enquired into the nature of God by using his own mind, whatever be the conclusion arrived at, even if it is a total rejection of Godhood, such an aspirant is far higher than the idler who never worries about the search after truth. This no my saying but is said in our scriptures.
Dr. Tulaev who was very much satisfied with this answer, asked the second question.
Dr. Tulaev: Sir, I am able to understand Visishtadvaita to a certain extent. In Advaita I am puzzled by the word `Maya'. `Maya', you say, is nothing. it does not exist. They why call it Maya?
His Holiness: Visishta-advaitins are also a particular type of Advaitins. They are qualified monists. They consider Maya as the body of God or Brahman. We (Advaitins) believe that Maya is the apparent manifestation of the Reality. I shall give you an example. One makes toys in the form of vegetables out of sugar and gives them appropriate colours. A child who sees them thinks that they re real vegetables. This knowledge is not a real knowledge. When the child grows old, he realises that they are all sugar and the forms are only apparent.
In this a knowledge that was not read did exist and on getting the real knowledge, the previous one disappears. In the same way, a rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light. It creates all the effects in spite of being unreal, but when the real knowledge is gained, the earlier one vanishes. Similar to this is Maya. The supreme Brahman is real. The universe with its varied forms is nothing but Brahaman. Yet we see the reality in its manifold forms. The thing that presents this varied manifestation is Maya. When the real knowledge is attained his manifold manifestation disappears as in the case of Brahmajnanis. You can neither say that maya exists nor that it does not exist. You may equate it with zero. Zero has neither value is it devoid of value. If you write simple `O' it has no value. If you add any other numeral before, it gains value. Maya is something like that.
Dr. Tulaev was struck with he answer. He was seen repeating - "like zero", now I understand", like zero".
The Acharya was seen smiling at this.
Dr. Tulaev: I am completely satisfied, Sir. Now I understand Advaita. I am very much thankful to you, Sir,
Dr. Tulaev was hesitating to ask further. He asked His Holiness permission to taking a photograph of His Holiness. His Holiness smilingly granted the request. Since His Holiness was standing in the shade. Dr. Tulaev was still hesitant, because of insufficient light. In a fraction of a second, the great Acharya realising the predicament of this new devotee, moved to sunlight, whereupon he quickly took a snap. His Holiness blessed the Russian with an apple.
On his way back Dr. Tulaev remarked: "Here is the true Indian sage who is living a simple life in the midst of such tiny villages, with people in such villages carrying the highest philosophy. It is only such sages that bless you with the answers you seek in a few seconds. I consider this a fortunate day in my life. I am happy that I have been able to meet him."
His Holiness at the first instance made kind enquiries about Dr. Tulaev's studies.
Dr. Tulaev: Sir, I am very much thankful to Your Holiness for having kindly given me the audience. I will not take much of Your Holiness time. I shall ask you only two questions. Sir could you kindly oblige me? The first is this: A man has no belief in religion He does not adopt any rituals, never goes to the temple or church, does not need any dogmas. But he always thinks good and does good throughout his life. Could you kindly tell me, Sir, whether such a man has any salvation at the end of his life?
His Holiness closed his eyes and was in meditation for a few seconds. The whole surrounding was absolutely calm, divinely calm. After the divinely pause, His Holiness replies `Yes'.
At this answer, Dr. Tulaev was overwhelmed with joy, a joy that he never experienced in life and for which his heart was longing all these years. He looked as if he has attained the unattainable. He whispered, `I thank you Sir, I thank you Sir, I thank you. I am satisfied'
His Holiness : (enlarging His answer) Do not think that I am giving you this answer after seeing the modern standards of life. No. This is said in our ancient scripture themselves. There are many aspirants. The Agnostics, those who enquire into the concept of God and by using their own brain, come to the conclusion that there is no God. Secondly there are the Buddhists, especially the Sunyavadins, who believe in non-existence. Thirdly the Jains, who believe in suffering by putting their body to various austerities, vratas. Fourthly, Saivaites, Aishnavites and others who believe in a personal God and spend their life in devotion; and lastly; the Advaitins who believe that the entire world, the cosmic reality is the apparent manifestation of one and the same ultimate Reality. All these aspirants get near the truth. the difference between them lies in their proximity to God. Step by step these five aspirants are neared the Reality. If one enquired into the nature of God by using his own mind, whatever be the conclusion arrived at, even if it is a total rejection of Godhood, such an aspirant is far higher than the idler who never worries about the search after truth. This no my saying but is said in our scriptures.
Dr. Tulaev who was very much satisfied with this answer, asked the second question.
Dr. Tulaev: Sir, I am able to understand Visishtadvaita to a certain extent. In Advaita I am puzzled by the word `Maya'. `Maya', you say, is nothing. it does not exist. They why call it Maya?
His Holiness: Visishta-advaitins are also a particular type of Advaitins. They are qualified monists. They consider Maya as the body of God or Brahman. We (Advaitins) believe that Maya is the apparent manifestation of the Reality. I shall give you an example. One makes toys in the form of vegetables out of sugar and gives them appropriate colours. A child who sees them thinks that they re real vegetables. This knowledge is not a real knowledge. When the child grows old, he realises that they are all sugar and the forms are only apparent.
In this a knowledge that was not read did exist and on getting the real knowledge, the previous one disappears. In the same way, a rope is mistaken for a snake in dim light. It creates all the effects in spite of being unreal, but when the real knowledge is gained, the earlier one vanishes. Similar to this is Maya. The supreme Brahman is real. The universe with its varied forms is nothing but Brahaman. Yet we see the reality in its manifold forms. The thing that presents this varied manifestation is Maya. When the real knowledge is attained his manifold manifestation disappears as in the case of Brahmajnanis. You can neither say that maya exists nor that it does not exist. You may equate it with zero. Zero has neither value is it devoid of value. If you write simple `O' it has no value. If you add any other numeral before, it gains value. Maya is something like that.
Dr. Tulaev was struck with he answer. He was seen repeating - "like zero", now I understand", like zero".
The Acharya was seen smiling at this.
Dr. Tulaev: I am completely satisfied, Sir. Now I understand Advaita. I am very much thankful to you, Sir,
Dr. Tulaev was hesitating to ask further. He asked His Holiness permission to taking a photograph of His Holiness. His Holiness smilingly granted the request. Since His Holiness was standing in the shade. Dr. Tulaev was still hesitant, because of insufficient light. In a fraction of a second, the great Acharya realising the predicament of this new devotee, moved to sunlight, whereupon he quickly took a snap. His Holiness blessed the Russian with an apple.
On his way back Dr. Tulaev remarked: "Here is the true Indian sage who is living a simple life in the midst of such tiny villages, with people in such villages carrying the highest philosophy. It is only such sages that bless you with the answers you seek in a few seconds. I consider this a fortunate day in my life. I am happy that I have been able to meet him."
Experiences with Mahaperiva!!!!
The following is an English translation from Tamil original of an
article by `A friend'. The article appears in the souvenir published by
the 450-year-old Raja Veda Kavya Patashala of Kumbhakonam.
He was a Sub-judge in Kumbhakonam (Tamilnadu) during 1961-63. I had not known him before or after he had assumed charge. One day, in the latter half of 1961, I was required to meet him. The message came through his clerk. I was a little surprised but when I went to meet him, he received me with courtesy and asked me to associate myself wit the effort to reform some public charitable institutions initially set up to do dharmic word.
Having under his control 35 such institutions, he had occasion to observe that they were not functioning according to the original intentions of their founder/donors. As one who had n experience of running such institutions, I was reluctant to undertake the assignment offered by the Sub-Judge. When I showed my disinclination, the Sub-judge told me firmly but in an endearing tone: "Why do you reject a request to serve a good cause? People are generally inclined to go on talking endlessly about the deficiencies of public institutions. They stop with that. I did not know you before, and, yet, I called you here because God prompted me to do so. If you do not wish to have a share in this good work, you will be committing a sin." I was nonplussed.
Fortunately, the Paramacharya of Kanchi, Jagadguru Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, was then camping at Elayatthangudi. I put in a telephone call to the manager of the Math, Sri Viswanatha Iyer, and requested him to ascertain the wishes of His Holiness in the matter. He gave a reply call conveying the Paramacharya's approval to my undertaking the assignment. I informed the Sub-Judge about my willingness to take up the responsibility he had intended to give me. Promptly, and with joy, he made me a trustee of the Govindakudi Appakkutti Iyer Charities. (GAC)
Along with me two more trustees were appointed. The Sub-Judge made the three of us responsible for the running of the Veda Patashala under the auspices of the GAC. He assured us of his help and support in overcoming all obstacles. Thanks to all round co-operation, we succeeded in reviving the Vedic school and running it with a strength of 70 pupils.
One day the Sub-Judge took me to an Arabic College in a village near mayavaram (now Mayiladuthurai). He took me to the classes where the students were taught the Koran with meaning. Turning to me, he said: "Like this, even the Vedas should be taught so that there would be sustained growth of Vedapatachalas." I remembered immediately that the Paramacharya had once asked me about a `Vedabhashya College'. I did not have adequate funds then but when the Paramacharya broached the subject, I told him without hesitation: "If that be His Holiness's wish, I will do everything possible to start such a college." His Holiness replied that He would ask me to do so at the appropriate time.
Now, that my visit to the Arabic College, I was determined to start one. I mentioned this to Paramacharya when I met Him the next time and requested Him to inaugurate it also if He had the time and convenience. The Paramacharya nodded His head in assent with a smile on his lips.
The initial obstacles to the starting of the Vedabhashya College having been overcome with the help of Sub-Judge, I reported progress to the Paramacharya. he remarked humorously: "Yes our own people will not listen to me. Even without my telling him, the Sub-judge has done his best."
A few months later, when the Paramacharya was camping at Kalyanapuram near Veppattur, the Sub-Judge expressed, rather hesitantly, a desire to meet Him. I told him that I would let him know His Holiness's convenience to meet Him in two days. When told His Holiness about the Sub-Judge's desire, the Paramacharya readily agreed to meet him. The Sub-Judge's joy knew no bounds when I told him that he could visit the Paramacharya.
The next day, late in the afternoon, both of us, the Sub-Judge and I called on His Holiness. It was raining heavily. The sub-Judge stayed back in the car and I went to meet the Paramacharya. The Acharya was in the midst of a discussion on some sastraic subject. The moment He saw me He gestured with His hand to mean, `Where is he?' When I said that he was in the car, the Acharya asked me to take the Sub-Judge to a premises nearby. I did so and within a short time, in pouring rain, wading through the slush, the Acharya reached the building. His Holiness enquired of the Sub-Judge about his family and honoured him with a shawl. The Sub-Judge replied to all the gentle queries and was on the verge of tears. I was a silent witness to their colloquy. "Be well, doing good things." He spoke not a word about the Veda Patashala or the Vedabhashya College. Returning to Kumbhakonam, the Sub-Judge, asked me to fix the date for the inauguration of the Vedabhashya College. It was finally opened by the Paramacharya on Dec. 12, 1963 at the Town High School, Kumbhakonam. About 5000 attended the function. Both the District judge and the Sub-Judge were present and also spoke on the occasion.
The Paramacharya spoke for about two hours. He also introduced the Sub-Judge to the gathering. When He had concluded his speech and the crowd had started dispersing, the Paramacharya raised His hand in a gesture of asking the people to sit down. He then narrated an incident.
When the Acharya's entourage which included the Math animals - the horse was carrying the drum - was passing in front of a mosque, there were objections from a group of Muslims. The horse was stopped but a conflict was somehow avoided. One of the members of the group at the mosque wanted to meet the Acharya the next day alone. The Acharya agreed though many objected to the Acharya meeting a stranger from what was considered to be a hostile community alone.
The Acharya brushed aside all objections and met the gentleman all alone. Did the visitor have any bad intention? No, all that he wanted was to read out to the Acharya the slokas in Sanskrit he had composed in praise of the Acharya! Asked how he learnt Sanskrit and what occupation he was engaged in the visitor replied that he had learnt Sanskrit from his father and other elders and that he was running a mutton shop! After narrating this episode, the Paramacharya said: "There are good people in every community," and made a brief reference to the good work of the Sub-Judge.
The Sub-Judge had several meetings with the Paramacharya after this function. When he was in some difficulty and I mentioned it to the Paramacharya, the Acharya just observed: "Both of you have God's grace." The Sub-Judge used to say: `Dharma will protect.'
Innumerable are the acts of benevolence of the Sub-Judge. He saw to it that the students of the Veda Patashala and the Vedabhashya College were properly fed and taken care of.
This is a divinity that binds us, the Sub-Judge and I as well as the Math.
What is the name of the Sub-judge? Judge Kamaluddin!
He was a Sub-judge in Kumbhakonam (Tamilnadu) during 1961-63. I had not known him before or after he had assumed charge. One day, in the latter half of 1961, I was required to meet him. The message came through his clerk. I was a little surprised but when I went to meet him, he received me with courtesy and asked me to associate myself wit the effort to reform some public charitable institutions initially set up to do dharmic word.
Having under his control 35 such institutions, he had occasion to observe that they were not functioning according to the original intentions of their founder/donors. As one who had n experience of running such institutions, I was reluctant to undertake the assignment offered by the Sub-Judge. When I showed my disinclination, the Sub-judge told me firmly but in an endearing tone: "Why do you reject a request to serve a good cause? People are generally inclined to go on talking endlessly about the deficiencies of public institutions. They stop with that. I did not know you before, and, yet, I called you here because God prompted me to do so. If you do not wish to have a share in this good work, you will be committing a sin." I was nonplussed.
Fortunately, the Paramacharya of Kanchi, Jagadguru Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, was then camping at Elayatthangudi. I put in a telephone call to the manager of the Math, Sri Viswanatha Iyer, and requested him to ascertain the wishes of His Holiness in the matter. He gave a reply call conveying the Paramacharya's approval to my undertaking the assignment. I informed the Sub-Judge about my willingness to take up the responsibility he had intended to give me. Promptly, and with joy, he made me a trustee of the Govindakudi Appakkutti Iyer Charities. (GAC)
Along with me two more trustees were appointed. The Sub-Judge made the three of us responsible for the running of the Veda Patashala under the auspices of the GAC. He assured us of his help and support in overcoming all obstacles. Thanks to all round co-operation, we succeeded in reviving the Vedic school and running it with a strength of 70 pupils.
One day the Sub-Judge took me to an Arabic College in a village near mayavaram (now Mayiladuthurai). He took me to the classes where the students were taught the Koran with meaning. Turning to me, he said: "Like this, even the Vedas should be taught so that there would be sustained growth of Vedapatachalas." I remembered immediately that the Paramacharya had once asked me about a `Vedabhashya College'. I did not have adequate funds then but when the Paramacharya broached the subject, I told him without hesitation: "If that be His Holiness's wish, I will do everything possible to start such a college." His Holiness replied that He would ask me to do so at the appropriate time.
Now, that my visit to the Arabic College, I was determined to start one. I mentioned this to Paramacharya when I met Him the next time and requested Him to inaugurate it also if He had the time and convenience. The Paramacharya nodded His head in assent with a smile on his lips.
The initial obstacles to the starting of the Vedabhashya College having been overcome with the help of Sub-Judge, I reported progress to the Paramacharya. he remarked humorously: "Yes our own people will not listen to me. Even without my telling him, the Sub-judge has done his best."
A few months later, when the Paramacharya was camping at Kalyanapuram near Veppattur, the Sub-Judge expressed, rather hesitantly, a desire to meet Him. I told him that I would let him know His Holiness's convenience to meet Him in two days. When told His Holiness about the Sub-Judge's desire, the Paramacharya readily agreed to meet him. The Sub-Judge's joy knew no bounds when I told him that he could visit the Paramacharya.
The next day, late in the afternoon, both of us, the Sub-Judge and I called on His Holiness. It was raining heavily. The sub-Judge stayed back in the car and I went to meet the Paramacharya. The Acharya was in the midst of a discussion on some sastraic subject. The moment He saw me He gestured with His hand to mean, `Where is he?' When I said that he was in the car, the Acharya asked me to take the Sub-Judge to a premises nearby. I did so and within a short time, in pouring rain, wading through the slush, the Acharya reached the building. His Holiness enquired of the Sub-Judge about his family and honoured him with a shawl. The Sub-Judge replied to all the gentle queries and was on the verge of tears. I was a silent witness to their colloquy. "Be well, doing good things." He spoke not a word about the Veda Patashala or the Vedabhashya College. Returning to Kumbhakonam, the Sub-Judge, asked me to fix the date for the inauguration of the Vedabhashya College. It was finally opened by the Paramacharya on Dec. 12, 1963 at the Town High School, Kumbhakonam. About 5000 attended the function. Both the District judge and the Sub-Judge were present and also spoke on the occasion.
The Paramacharya spoke for about two hours. He also introduced the Sub-Judge to the gathering. When He had concluded his speech and the crowd had started dispersing, the Paramacharya raised His hand in a gesture of asking the people to sit down. He then narrated an incident.
When the Acharya's entourage which included the Math animals - the horse was carrying the drum - was passing in front of a mosque, there were objections from a group of Muslims. The horse was stopped but a conflict was somehow avoided. One of the members of the group at the mosque wanted to meet the Acharya the next day alone. The Acharya agreed though many objected to the Acharya meeting a stranger from what was considered to be a hostile community alone.
The Acharya brushed aside all objections and met the gentleman all alone. Did the visitor have any bad intention? No, all that he wanted was to read out to the Acharya the slokas in Sanskrit he had composed in praise of the Acharya! Asked how he learnt Sanskrit and what occupation he was engaged in the visitor replied that he had learnt Sanskrit from his father and other elders and that he was running a mutton shop! After narrating this episode, the Paramacharya said: "There are good people in every community," and made a brief reference to the good work of the Sub-Judge.
The Sub-Judge had several meetings with the Paramacharya after this function. When he was in some difficulty and I mentioned it to the Paramacharya, the Acharya just observed: "Both of you have God's grace." The Sub-Judge used to say: `Dharma will protect.'
Innumerable are the acts of benevolence of the Sub-Judge. He saw to it that the students of the Veda Patashala and the Vedabhashya College were properly fed and taken care of.
This is a divinity that binds us, the Sub-Judge and I as well as the Math.
What is the name of the Sub-judge? Judge Kamaluddin!
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Origin of Sanskrit language
Sanskrit
was introduced on the earth planet, by the eternal Sages of
Sanatan Dharm along with the Divine scriptures such
as the Vedas, the Upnishads and the Puranas. A famous verse
in Sage Panini’s Ashtadhyayi tells that the Panini grammar
that is in use now is directly Graced by God Shiv.
 |
|
Once,
at the end of His Divine ecstatic dance induced by the enthralling
effects of Krishn love, God Shiv played on His damru
(the mini hand-drum which God Shiv holds in His hand). Fourteen
very distinct sounds came out of it. Sage Panini conceived
them in his Divine mind and on the basis of those Divine sounds,
reestablished the science of Sanskrit grammar which already
eternally existed.
|
Since
the start of human civilization on the earth, people and the
Sages both spoke pure Sanskrit language. The historical records
indicate that three public programs of the recitation of the
Bhagwatam and the discourses on Krishn leelas had
happened in Sanskrit language in 3072 BC, 2872 BC and 2842
BC in which Saints and the devotees participated. Later on
when the population increased, the prakrit form of
speech with partly mispronounced words (called apbhranshas)
was developed in the less educated society and became popular.
|
|
|
The
Manu Smriti says that the ambitious chatriyas of
Bharatvarsh went abroad to the neighboring countries to establish
their new kingdoms and, as they were cut off from the mainstream
of the Bhartiya civilization and culture, they developed their
own language and civilization as time went on. Natural calamities
(such as ice ages) totally shattered their civilizations but
still the survivors, in the spoken form of their primitive
languages, held many apbhransh words of the original
Sanskrit language which their remote ancestors had retained
in their memory. As a result of this affiliation with Bhartiya
culture and the Sanskrit language, Sanskrit became the origin
of the growth of the literary development in other languages
of the world.
|
|
The
phonology (the speech sound) and morphology (the science of
word formation) of the Sanskrit language is entirely different
from all of the languages of the world. Some of the unique
features of Sanskrit are:
|
|
1.
|
The
sound of each of the 36 consonants and the 16 vowels of Sanskrit
are fixed and precise since the very beginning. They were
never changed, altered, improved or modified. All the words
of the Sanskrit language always had the same pronunciation
as they have today. There was no ‘sound shift,’ no
change in the vowel system, and no addition was ever made
in the grammar of the Sanskrit in relation to the formation
of the words. The reason is its absolute perfection
by its own nature and formation, because it was the first
language of the world.
|
|
2.
|
The
morphology of word formation is unique and of its own kind
where a word is formed from a tiny seed root (called dhatu)
in a precise grammatical order which has been the same since
the very beginning. Any number of desired words could be created
through its root words and the prefix and suffix system as
detailed in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini. Furthermore, 90 forms
of each verb and 21 forms of each noun or pronoun could be
formed that could be used in any situation.
|
|
3.
|
There
has never been any kind, class or nature of change in the
science of Sanskrit grammar as seen in other languages of
the world as they passed through one stage to another.
|
|
4.
|
The
perfect form of the Vedic Sanskrit language had already existed
thousands of years earlier even before the infancy of the
earliest prime languages of the world like Greek, Hebrew and
Latin etc.
|
|
5.
|
When
a language is spoken by unqualified people the pronunciation
of the word changes to some extent; and when these words travel
by word of mouth to another region of the land, with the gap
of some generations, it permanently changes its form and shape
to some extent. Just like the Sanskrit word matri,
with a long ‘a’ and soft ‘t,’ became mater in Greek
and mother in English. The last two words are called
the ‘apbhransh’ of the original Sanskrit word ‘matri.’
Such apbhranshas of Sanskrit words are found
in all the languages of the world and this situation itself
proves that Sanskrit was the mother language of the world.
|
|
Considering
all the five points as explained above, it is quite evident
that Sanskrit is the source of all the languages of the world
and not a derivation of any language. As such, Sanskrit
is the Divine mother language of the world.
|
A true frienship-a surrender-a devotion- The great Krishna Arjuna !!!
Once
Lord Krishna and Arjuna were walking down a lane leading to a beautiful
wood. While walking Lord Krishna looked upon the sky and saw a bird
flying. It was very beautiful, He immediately pricked Arjuna and said
"look arjuna, how beautiful the bird is!", Arjuna replied, "Yes my Lord,
Its indeed a beautiful bird". Krishna observed for a while and said "I
wonder what bird is it! may be its a white stork, am i right Arjuna,
what do you think?".
Arjuna without a second glance on the bird immediately replied "yes my Lord its a white stork, you are right"
Lord
Krishna thought for a while and remarked "It can't be a white stork as i
can see its real color, probably due to the clouds it looked white, but
now i can see its pinkish white, may be its a flamingo, see for
yourself Arjuna".
Arjuna without a second glance on the
bird immediately replied "yes my Lord you are right, it is pinkish white
and its a flamingo"
Lord Krishna did this trick a few
more times and each time he denied what he earlier said of the bird. He
would sometimes say its green, its blue and everytime Arjuna agreed to
Lord Krishna.
Lord Krishna again remarked, "No Arjuna, we
both are wrong, its neither white nor pink, nor it is of any other
color. I can now see clearly its brown and its a giant Eagle. Look for
yourself Arjuna and see whether I am right"
Arjuna without
a second glance on the bird immediately replied "yes my Lord you are
right, the bird is brown in color and its a giant eagle".
This
made Lord Krishna stop and He immediately playfully rebuked Arjuna, "I
see you are mocking Me, whatever I say you agree upon. Don't you have
your own judgments and can't you use your senses, your mind and your
intelligence in determining what bird it is?. Why are you always
agreeing upon what I say? I see you are making fun of Me".
Arjuna
trying to hide a smile replied to Lord Krishna, "My Lord, why do you
put me to such tests. I tell you one thing, even if you declare that its
not a bird at all but some kind of Vimana (air craft) or say that its
some thing else, still i will agree upon your words. For my Lord, who
can be greater authority than You. You are the Supreme Lord, the
creator, the father, mother and grandsire. You are the only enjoyer and
the supreme Lord and supreme friend of every living entity. Who can be
greater than You my Lord."
Krishna was amused by the reply!
Arjuna
further said, "My Lord, I didn't even see the bird but just agreed upon
your words. For my Lord how much time will it take you to change the
bird from a stork to flamingo, from a swan to giant eagle, or how much
time will it take you Lord to make the bird into a vimana. Its all your
Maya. Everything is resting upon You as pearls are resting on the thread
of a necklace.
Oh Krishna, I totally accept whatever You
tell me my Lord. Neither the hosts of demigods nor the demons can fully
understand You, nor comprehend You.
My Lord my beloved, how can i disagree with my Lord my God , Oh Krishna.
Lord Krishna gave a cute smile and put His hands upon Arjuna's shoulder and the two friends walked away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)