The One Lord has come down to Earth
What are we to do?
The One Lord walks amongst us,
Striding tall for such a short being
What are we to do?
He smiles the smile of love
Awaking us to possibilities
Hastening us to Oneness
What are we to do?
Time rolls on,
We waste and want in vain
Never really knowing what to want
But wanting nevertheless
Happiness? Longevity? Riches?
Who wants wisdom?
Street smarts is in, wisdom out of vogue
What are we to do?
He assails us with love, we want miracles
He besets our mind with wisdom
We want trinkets
What are we to do?
Somewhere down the line we will want what He wants
Where is the line and when is somewhere?
If we could only do what he wants
Life would be great, life would be life
But what does he want?
And what we to do?
Trouble in the world, death, disaster, dreariness
Trouble in our minds, care, corruption and callousness
Trouble inside, trouble outside
What are we to do?
A loving hand, arm of faith, He offers everyone
We set conditions that he won’t meet
Trifles we seek and riches He offers
Yet we know not what he gives, what He offers
Times are changing, ways falling by the wayside
Time ticks on, hastening our demise
He walks alone, none to accompany Him
Berated, loved, accused, wanted,
He walks alone, alone on a path he chose.
Who will walk with Him, in His footsteps,
Matching His stride, becoming God?
Who will master His example, go where he dwells,
Take what He offers, make Him his own?
Who will become the iron that reaches for His magnet?
The gold purified in His crucible?
Love is such a wonderful word, never really understood
Lust is what we all feel, love more a forlorn feeling
Yearn we must, but for whom?
What are we to do?
Yearn for God, what is God, where is God?
I look inside and see blackness, with points of light.
Which is God, the light or the darkness?
What is me inside, not the me outside?
I seek, I soar, I plummet and fall
Never knowing where I am
What is there to do – it should be easy
This way to God – why is it difficult, going home?
Why is going home so hard to do?
Why shouldn’t it be the easiest thing to do?
God is out father, our mother, our kin
Yet why all the need for austerities, the sadhnas?
Don’t tell me it is just the way it should be done.
Who is to say why it should be done thus and not another way?
I want to be able to slip into my home without giving notice,
Without begging to be let in, without having to ask to be let in
It should be my right, as man who is God
Mulling in meditation, my mind wanders.
I am told harness the mind to better things –
What better things?
I am told yearn for God
Define God
I am God, why can’t I just go home
Where is home?
Inside me, in that pitch blackness of nothing,
Or in the points of lights that threaten to go out if you concentrate too much
Mind wanders, all is infatuation, great!
Is my love for God an infatuation also?
Then what is this thing called love?
Mere affection shifted from the world to God?
Define God
And what is the outcome of this shift,
Affection for God, positing all the feelings of the world
Onto a chimera that we are unable to define?
Is Sai a chimera, as is the world?
Then what be His purpose? His raison d'etre?
His modus operandi can be understood but His reason behind doing it?
Why has He come? Are we in deep trouble?
Trouble of whose making? Where is the Golden Age?
Why the strife before the goodness? Is it an integral part of this life?
Why can’t we all be just good to start off with?
I was a rock, what sins/mistakes did I commit to have this life?
What did fate weave for me that I am who I am now?
What harm did I do as a vegetable, did I sin as an animal?
I was just following my dharma then, what made me into a human?
Being a human is a bad thing, I had to meander around for many lives
Before the thought of God was generated into me?
And now I meander, hopelessly, yearning for God
Who stands apart, aloof, waiting for me to make all the moves.
One step from me, then He will take 10 from His side?
Why won’t He cuddle me, He who says He is my mother, my father?
Why is he waiting for Me to make a move?
Have I not been moving all this while?
Where was He when I was committing those sins
That shoved me further away, drew up this barrier between me and Him?
Busy? With what? Making the world go round?
Manning the lights for the cosmic highway? Directing the traffic?
Grow up God, You want us, come get us
Why put us through this misery we call life to purify us.
All is God, what is there to purify, what is there to work towards?
Open up the gate, we stand waiting to enter, whatever it is that needs to be entered
Or become, whatever it is we will become.
There are so many obstacles to You, Sai. Why?
Who put this obstacles in my path, Me?
I don’t think so. I don’t believe so. I will not believe so.
Why would I, moving towards God, choose to plant pitfalls
Rather then a highway to Godhead?
Maya should be the great helper in our move (I won’t call it a quest) to You
Not the harridan she is made out to be
I stopped reading Kabir when he called Maya a harlot
Is she? Why would she be so? I see no reason whatsoever.
The defect, if any, resides in you, My Lord.
You have kept us at arms length, teasing us, playing with us.
In Your Olympian stance, you have not yearned for us
And yet you want us to yearn for you.
You say you want devotees yet we can never get close
You won’t let us: we are not pure enough, we are not good enough
And now we are not God enough
What other obstacle course will you have for us
When we somehow trip over and come clambering after You this time?
My road is mapped and I believe this life is going to waste
I can’t be noble, I can’t be selfless, I can’t be honourable
Although I want it with all my heart
I want riches, for myself, and for others. This can’t be selfish
Why would the world wallow in money and I wallow in misery
What goodness can come from misery? From tragedy?
Is it the fear that makes us good – not the need to be good?
What kind of goodness is this, that is based on fear?
Fear of punishment by karma, fear of God getting angry?
Is earth nothing but a penal colony, wrought to work out the sins of man?
Where is the love You promised? That You forever hold out to us?
Hold out on us?
What are we to do?
What steps to take? The ones prescribed by You promises something
If only we do so many things, follow the rigid rules
Why can’t we love, in the way it is promised?
My sadhna is pitiful, why won’t You come rushing to help me along?
Too soon? When will it be the right time?
When the life has gone out of me, my eyes are dimmed, my mind numb,
my brain fouled with life? Why do You even let this happen? This so called foulness that creeps in over lifetimes, why allow it to happen at all?
Was I better off as a rock, maybe a vegetable, an animal?
They do not sin, their dharma is set,
What man was I to even start incurring sin, what did I do wrong
That I now have to pay for it? Why am I paying for something that you did?
You set it in motion, you prodded and pondered, you set the outcomes
Why must I pay for it?
I want out, I want to go back to where I came from.
This individuality must go, if not
This misery must go.
I want to be happy, content, doing what is natural
What is natural? Everything seems alien, I can’t do anything that gives me happiness
Why can’t I be happy, especially since God walks the Earth?
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Science of Hinduism
Odd as it may seem, science is catching up to the philosophy that is Hinduism. Finally we are getting scientists to validate what our philosophers have been saying for millennia – the world is maya.
Of course they don’t use the term maya (that would be conceding that Hindu philosophers are right). They are saying the universe is a phantasm, a phantasmagoria of images created by our brains. Note that they are not using the word mind, which in Hinduism is both the bane and the boon of any spiritual endeavour.
The concept that the universe is a phantasm is based on scientific studies of the theory of the holographic universe by the University of Paris research team led by physicist Alain Aspect and University of London physicist David Bohm. Their findings of the universe as a holographic projection have been either accepted with excitement by some scientists or shot down in disgust by other scientists.
Let’s deal with what a hologram is before we go further. A hologram is a laser picture of an object in which the object is first bathed with a laser light output and then another laser output takes a picture of the object covered in laser light. The convergence of the two laser lights give a three-dimensional picture when played back through a laser projector. Research show that a holographic image when divided does not cut the image in half but ends up as two entire images of the same object, smaller but the whole image nevertheless. This process of becoming two smaller images of the preceding images continues with each division. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
Here are some Hindu concepts and their correlating scientific.
1. Consciousness is God (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman)
2. All is maya, that the universe is a mixture of the reality and unreality (Jagat Mithya). Each of us is the whole universe in miniature.
Consciousness is God (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman)
Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. - Michael Talbot - author of a number of books highlighting parallels between ancient mysticism and quantum mechanics.
Our shastras have always noted the correlations of everything in the universe to everything else in the universe. The appellation of God as Sat Chit Ananda shows the triple aspect of being (reality), consciousness and bliss as an integral One. Chit as consciousness permeates everything, only varying in the level of perception when this consciousness is observed or apprehended in objects. We already know that plants and animals have different consciousness levels, with humans exhibiting the most awareness of all living things. But science has noted that all so-called objects are merely different projections of energy, and energy has its own awareness as demonstrated by the sub-atomic particles reacting to stimuli, either introduced or integral to their environment. (check out the double-slit experiment and the wave-particle duality)
Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. (Michael Talbot)
That fundamental something is chit, one of the three aspects of God as Brahman (see below for an explanation on Brahman). Bohm proposes in his book, Thought as a System that thought is the basis of the universe, that the universe is an entity that is aware and responsive. He firmly believes that thought, in this case, is a single entity, indivisible into parts. This means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. And that is the concept of chit Hinduism has been offering for the past few millennia.
While Bohm and others have worked out that the universe is a projection, a phantasm that puts paid to ‘objective reality’, they are still to work out the basis of this projection. For a projection cannot stand on its own. As a cinema projection must have a screen to play the various images from the projector, so must the universe have a basis for this holographic projection.
All is maya
Brahman permeates everything, from the atom to the earth. Everything in the universe is intrinsically linked to each other. So says our scriptures.
Brahman in the Upanishads is the basis of the universe, the formless, nameless, eternal entity on which the universe is projected as an illusion. This illusion, called maya, gives rise to forms which need names, thus offering our minds a semblance of objective reality. This ‘reality’ is only comprehended by the analysis of impulses gathered by our senses and the mind. The limitations of the five senses gives us a limited apprehension of the universe. If we had a sixth sense, the analysis would shows us something different from what we are seeing now.
Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, involved in the field of brain research, believes the brain is itself a hologram. A hologram has a large (some say incredible) capacity for encoding and decoding frequencies, something the brain also does remarkably well, using the senses to gather these frequencies. The brain does not work like a computer, sorting through files to come up with corresponding data. It is able to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories where every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information. It works like a hologram does - translating a ‘meaningless’ blur of frequencies garnered through the senses into an image we can understand.
Now scientists are saying that memory does not reside in the brain but in the (chemical and electric) energy of the neural network, finally giving us an idea of what the mind is. The idea of memory not residing in the brain came about through experiments by brain scientist Karl Lashley who showed that labs rats who had had a part of their brains removed continued with complex tasks that they learnt before the removal. It did not matter which part of the brain was removed, the memory of the tasks and how to perform them remained.
Let’s put some perspective to the illusion of the universe in light of the holographic model of both the universe and the brain.
Now, according to science, the brain works on the holographic model of perception and analysis, translating an otherwise meaningless mixture of stimulus into a coherent image, and the universe is a holographic projection. What the projected universe offers is analysed by the brain/mind and offered to us as reality. This is a collusion based on the intricate connection between the brain/mind and the universe, a collusion based on an illusion. If the universe itself is a phantasm, an illusion to start off with, the brain/mind is actually dealing with the unreal in making our ‘reality’.
This projected universe, seen through our senses and mind, allows us to ‘judge’ the environment somewhat. It also allows us the scope of further investigation, based on our perceptions. Greater effort, either through spiritual practice or through science, enables us to see beyond our noses, to enter into realms beyond the limitations of our senses.
This where spiritualism has advanced further than science. As science dawdles with its empirical observations, yogis have realised that the senses need to be superseded to understand the universe, and the universe as God. The best way to supersede the mind and the senses was to rein in thought. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Bohm says the universe is one, indivisible thought and the rishis knew that to realise the reality behind the universe they had to subsume the small thoughts in one’s own mind with that of the universal thought.
It is our thoughts that define us as individuals, sets up apart from the rest. It is in the control of thoughts (and later the sublimation of these thoughts) that allows us to realise the one thought of the universe. So say the schools of philosophy in the Indian system of beliefs.
Indian philosophy states that the universe is this maya which is a mere limited interpretation of the reality on which it is based. The microcosmic reflector mind works on the basis that the five sense combine to offer a picture of the universe. Sadly, a not so accurate picture since, despite their great capabilities, the senses are limited. That is why we have anomalies, like ESP and para-normal activities. Ever wondered why they see/experience this other-worldly stuff, and we can’t?
Our scriptures also say that everything in the universe is inside of us. I believe they meant what science says is the macrocosm being present in the microcosm. The mantra - Om purna mada purna midam, Purnaat purnam udachyate, Purnasya purnam adaaya, Purnam eva vasishyate, which translates into "That is the whole, this is the Whole; from the Whole, the Whole arises; taking away the Whole from the Whole, the Whole remains" – first told us that the universe came out of a wholeness, from which it emanated as a whole and the whole which it came from remained whole, without losing anything. Very holographic.
As in the division of the holograph, where the image splits into two but remains whole, the individual mind is the individualised splitting of the reality/base (Brahman) behind holographic projection of the universe. Since they are but the same thing, the mind and the universe work well together to offer us the apparatus for ‘experiencing’ the universe. Each mind is the exact albeit smaller replica of the projected universe, if we work on the "whole in every part" nature of a hologram. What is out there indeed is inside of us, exactly.
But is it unreal? While maya means illusion, it has attendant connotative meanings including attachment (moha) and ahamkara (ego/egoism), both of which go towards defining maya completely. The Sanskrit word mithya means relatively real, that which is experienced as being real only in relation to what actually is real. It is like asking which is real: the pot or the clay from which the pot is made; the jewellery or the gold of which they are made?.
So, while the rishis posited that the world was an illusion, they did not go on to say it was unreal. Mithya is what the universe is and, real or unreal, it will be a point of contention for everyone living in it.
Please note, some of the scientific theories mentioned here are still to find their way into mainstream science and will not be found in text books. Try the Wikipedia to get more information on these concepts.
The Hindu precepts in this article are from the Upanishads, the basis of Vedanta (monism). Many of the aspects of Hinduism mentioned in the article can also be found in the Bhagavad Gita, and their interpretations are found in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Some readers may disagree with some of the spiritual concepts dealt with here if they subscribe to other schools of philosophies within the Hindu belief system.
Of course they don’t use the term maya (that would be conceding that Hindu philosophers are right). They are saying the universe is a phantasm, a phantasmagoria of images created by our brains. Note that they are not using the word mind, which in Hinduism is both the bane and the boon of any spiritual endeavour.
The concept that the universe is a phantasm is based on scientific studies of the theory of the holographic universe by the University of Paris research team led by physicist Alain Aspect and University of London physicist David Bohm. Their findings of the universe as a holographic projection have been either accepted with excitement by some scientists or shot down in disgust by other scientists.
Let’s deal with what a hologram is before we go further. A hologram is a laser picture of an object in which the object is first bathed with a laser light output and then another laser output takes a picture of the object covered in laser light. The convergence of the two laser lights give a three-dimensional picture when played back through a laser projector. Research show that a holographic image when divided does not cut the image in half but ends up as two entire images of the same object, smaller but the whole image nevertheless. This process of becoming two smaller images of the preceding images continues with each division. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
Here are some Hindu concepts and their correlating scientific.
1. Consciousness is God (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman)
2. All is maya, that the universe is a mixture of the reality and unreality (Jagat Mithya). Each of us is the whole universe in miniature.
Consciousness is God (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahman)
Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. - Michael Talbot - author of a number of books highlighting parallels between ancient mysticism and quantum mechanics.
Our shastras have always noted the correlations of everything in the universe to everything else in the universe. The appellation of God as Sat Chit Ananda shows the triple aspect of being (reality), consciousness and bliss as an integral One. Chit as consciousness permeates everything, only varying in the level of perception when this consciousness is observed or apprehended in objects. We already know that plants and animals have different consciousness levels, with humans exhibiting the most awareness of all living things. But science has noted that all so-called objects are merely different projections of energy, and energy has its own awareness as demonstrated by the sub-atomic particles reacting to stimuli, either introduced or integral to their environment. (check out the double-slit experiment and the wave-particle duality)
Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something. (Michael Talbot)
That fundamental something is chit, one of the three aspects of God as Brahman (see below for an explanation on Brahman). Bohm proposes in his book, Thought as a System that thought is the basis of the universe, that the universe is an entity that is aware and responsive. He firmly believes that thought, in this case, is a single entity, indivisible into parts. This means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. And that is the concept of chit Hinduism has been offering for the past few millennia.
While Bohm and others have worked out that the universe is a projection, a phantasm that puts paid to ‘objective reality’, they are still to work out the basis of this projection. For a projection cannot stand on its own. As a cinema projection must have a screen to play the various images from the projector, so must the universe have a basis for this holographic projection.
All is maya
Brahman permeates everything, from the atom to the earth. Everything in the universe is intrinsically linked to each other. So says our scriptures.
Brahman in the Upanishads is the basis of the universe, the formless, nameless, eternal entity on which the universe is projected as an illusion. This illusion, called maya, gives rise to forms which need names, thus offering our minds a semblance of objective reality. This ‘reality’ is only comprehended by the analysis of impulses gathered by our senses and the mind. The limitations of the five senses gives us a limited apprehension of the universe. If we had a sixth sense, the analysis would shows us something different from what we are seeing now.
Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, involved in the field of brain research, believes the brain is itself a hologram. A hologram has a large (some say incredible) capacity for encoding and decoding frequencies, something the brain also does remarkably well, using the senses to gather these frequencies. The brain does not work like a computer, sorting through files to come up with corresponding data. It is able to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories where every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information. It works like a hologram does - translating a ‘meaningless’ blur of frequencies garnered through the senses into an image we can understand.
Now scientists are saying that memory does not reside in the brain but in the (chemical and electric) energy of the neural network, finally giving us an idea of what the mind is. The idea of memory not residing in the brain came about through experiments by brain scientist Karl Lashley who showed that labs rats who had had a part of their brains removed continued with complex tasks that they learnt before the removal. It did not matter which part of the brain was removed, the memory of the tasks and how to perform them remained.
Let’s put some perspective to the illusion of the universe in light of the holographic model of both the universe and the brain.
Now, according to science, the brain works on the holographic model of perception and analysis, translating an otherwise meaningless mixture of stimulus into a coherent image, and the universe is a holographic projection. What the projected universe offers is analysed by the brain/mind and offered to us as reality. This is a collusion based on the intricate connection between the brain/mind and the universe, a collusion based on an illusion. If the universe itself is a phantasm, an illusion to start off with, the brain/mind is actually dealing with the unreal in making our ‘reality’.
This projected universe, seen through our senses and mind, allows us to ‘judge’ the environment somewhat. It also allows us the scope of further investigation, based on our perceptions. Greater effort, either through spiritual practice or through science, enables us to see beyond our noses, to enter into realms beyond the limitations of our senses.
This where spiritualism has advanced further than science. As science dawdles with its empirical observations, yogis have realised that the senses need to be superseded to understand the universe, and the universe as God. The best way to supersede the mind and the senses was to rein in thought. Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Bohm says the universe is one, indivisible thought and the rishis knew that to realise the reality behind the universe they had to subsume the small thoughts in one’s own mind with that of the universal thought.
It is our thoughts that define us as individuals, sets up apart from the rest. It is in the control of thoughts (and later the sublimation of these thoughts) that allows us to realise the one thought of the universe. So say the schools of philosophy in the Indian system of beliefs.
Indian philosophy states that the universe is this maya which is a mere limited interpretation of the reality on which it is based. The microcosmic reflector mind works on the basis that the five sense combine to offer a picture of the universe. Sadly, a not so accurate picture since, despite their great capabilities, the senses are limited. That is why we have anomalies, like ESP and para-normal activities. Ever wondered why they see/experience this other-worldly stuff, and we can’t?
Our scriptures also say that everything in the universe is inside of us. I believe they meant what science says is the macrocosm being present in the microcosm. The mantra - Om purna mada purna midam, Purnaat purnam udachyate, Purnasya purnam adaaya, Purnam eva vasishyate, which translates into "That is the whole, this is the Whole; from the Whole, the Whole arises; taking away the Whole from the Whole, the Whole remains" – first told us that the universe came out of a wholeness, from which it emanated as a whole and the whole which it came from remained whole, without losing anything. Very holographic.
As in the division of the holograph, where the image splits into two but remains whole, the individual mind is the individualised splitting of the reality/base (Brahman) behind holographic projection of the universe. Since they are but the same thing, the mind and the universe work well together to offer us the apparatus for ‘experiencing’ the universe. Each mind is the exact albeit smaller replica of the projected universe, if we work on the "whole in every part" nature of a hologram. What is out there indeed is inside of us, exactly.
But is it unreal? While maya means illusion, it has attendant connotative meanings including attachment (moha) and ahamkara (ego/egoism), both of which go towards defining maya completely. The Sanskrit word mithya means relatively real, that which is experienced as being real only in relation to what actually is real. It is like asking which is real: the pot or the clay from which the pot is made; the jewellery or the gold of which they are made?.
So, while the rishis posited that the world was an illusion, they did not go on to say it was unreal. Mithya is what the universe is and, real or unreal, it will be a point of contention for everyone living in it.
Please note, some of the scientific theories mentioned here are still to find their way into mainstream science and will not be found in text books. Try the Wikipedia to get more information on these concepts.
The Hindu precepts in this article are from the Upanishads, the basis of Vedanta (monism). Many of the aspects of Hinduism mentioned in the article can also be found in the Bhagavad Gita, and their interpretations are found in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Some readers may disagree with some of the spiritual concepts dealt with here if they subscribe to other schools of philosophies within the Hindu belief system.
Redefining our concept of God
Leaving some scientists and all atheists aside, the bulk of humanity believes in the existence of a being that brought about creation, and thus us, into existence. In fact less than 15 percent of the world population state that they do not believe in god, or gods (Year 2000 figure).
Yet for all it is worth, none of our mainstream religions have come up with a god that is for all people at all places for all times. Why is this so, considering that 85 percent of humanity believes in the existence of God?
The main reason for this divisions of adherents for a particular god is the ‘protection of the faith’ dilemma faced by those who believe in the validity of the beliefs they hold dear. It is a veritable survival of the fittest contest when it comes to keeping the flame burning.
Where any religion plans to extend its influence, it has to resort to vilification of others and exaggeration of its own excellences. Pomp and publicity become more important than practice and faith.
Each religion promotes its god as the only one, and the rest are deemed fake, phoneys or figments of imagination. It is either my god; or their god, or a demon/devil posing as god, or anything except the possibility that it could be god.
The egoistic craving for power and competitive success has, in some cases, persuaded us to use religion as an instrument of torture and persecution. Instead of uniting mankind in a common endeavour, it has become a system of walled enclosures, guarded by hate and fanaticism.
The belief system surrounding any god has been built up over generations, and is based on ‘tried and true’ ways of interpreting events that brought about a collective belief. For example, what would Judaism be without the laws of Moses, or Islam without Prophet Mohammed’s (Praise Be To His Name) call to his people, or Christianity without Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or Hinduism without its concept of an avatar, or Buddhism without Buddha?
I believe each religions attempts to impart holy ideals in the heart of man. But, man does not allow them to sprout and grow. Each religion has become an armed camp. Set in the path to self aggrandizement, trying to wean others into itself and preventing defections from it, religion, in many cases, is the root of chaos and conflict.
The teacher may have been inclusive, compassionate, a propagator of news ideas (so well demonstrated by Jesus and Prophet Mohammed) but not so the followers. Rigid rules and thought patterns were the outcomes of a system that wanted to retain its beliefs at all costs. At the cost of thought. At the cost of humanity.
This is a fair analysis of how we, as a adherent of a philosophical thought, let slide our sublime beliefs on the face of adversity: “But when the country was involved in the vicissitudes of history and the people were subjected to pressures and counter-pressures, the ideal suffered set-back; the abstractions of faith received concrete form and get crystallised into specific identifiable names and forms; each new attitude, or aptitude, each new concretisation, became a special sect, every theory got enveloped in its own shell.”
It is these feelings of elitism, of exclusivity, of being the chosen lot that makes religions the laughing stock of any rational person. And the fanatics who maintain that their god is the only right one puts paid to the idea that religion has any saving grace.
Yet, and I mean this emphatically, God remains a most vital aspect of humanity. Take away the dross of any system of beliefs and God becomes apparent. But first you have to take away the dross.
This means making an effort to wean yourself away from the conditioning and habits of what you have learnt as part of your culture’s interpretation of God.
One of the best ways of doing this is to answer the following questions honestly:
Do you believe God is omniscient, that He knows every thought of yours, even the ones you don’t want Him to know?
If yes, do you firmly believe that anything you do, think, or say, from the smallest act/thought/word to the grossest, is known to Him?
Do you act as if every act and thought of yours is known to Him?
Do you believe God is omnipresent? If yes, does this mean that God is in everything around and beyond you? Is this an intellectual belief or a belief that you live by? Do you treat anyone you meet as an embodiment of God, no matter how evil he is or what wrong he has done to you? Do you believe every living thing is an embodiment of God?
If you don’t, then God can’t be omnipresent and it puts paid to the idea that god is all-knowing and present everywhere. Then he can’t be god. No amount of qualifying can get past this idea – if God is to be omniscient and omnipresent, He must know what you think, say or do and if He is omnipresent, He is everywhere, in you, outside of you and in everything else you see.
Only after we have accepted these two ideas can we even begin to look at the omnipotence of God.
The practice of believing that God is omniscient and omnipresent is the royal road to godhead, not any other thing. All rites and rituals in any religion does but one thing, purify our thoughts enough for this one belief to take root in our minds; that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
God by any name should still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the test of faith, of belief in your system and it should be what decides who believes in God and who doesn’t.
Notes to ponder
1. As of 2000, approximately 53% of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33% Christian, 20% Islam, <1% Judaism), 6% with Buddhism, 13% with Hinduism, 6% with traditional Chinese religion, 7% with various other religions, and less than 15% as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods
God by any other name would still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient
2. The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea", ("goddess"), and '"deus", ("god"), and other Indo-European roots such as from the Sanskrit "deva", ("god"), "devi", ("goddess"), "divya", ("transcendental", "spiritual"). Related are words for "sky": the Latin "dies" ("day") and "divum" ("open sky"), and the Sanskrit "div," "diu" ("sky," "day," "shine"). Also related are "divine" and "divinity," from the Latin "divinus," from "divus." Khoda (Persian: خدا ) translates to God from Persian.
The English word "God" comes from Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (e.g. the German "Gott" — "God").
3. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
4. Some Jewish, Christian and Muslim Medieval philosophers, including Moses Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as many sages of other religions, developed what is termed as Apophatic Theology or the Via Negativa, the idea that one cannot posit attributes to God and can only be discussed by what God is not. For example, we cannot say that God "exists" in the usual sense of the term, because that term is human defined and God's qualities such as existence may not be accurately characterized by it. What we can safely say is that it cannot be proven empirically or otherwise that God is existent, therefore God is not non-existent. Likewise God's "wisdom" is of a fundamentally different kind from limited human perception. So we cannot use the word "wise" to describe God, because this implies he is wise in the way we usually describe humans being wise. However we can safely say that God is not ignorant. We should not say that God is One, because we may not truly understand his nature, but we can state that there is no multiplicity in God's being.
The above concept is also prevalent in Hinduism as seen by the phrase “neti, neti Brahman”, (this in not Brahman) in pursuing the ideal of what is Brahman and what is the jagat (world).
5. 'Process theology' is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), and 'Open theism' is a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.
In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. Process theology is compatible with panentheism, the concept that God contains the universe (pantheism) but also transcends it. God as the ultimate logician - God may be defined as the only entity, by definition, possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously
Yet for all it is worth, none of our mainstream religions have come up with a god that is for all people at all places for all times. Why is this so, considering that 85 percent of humanity believes in the existence of God?
The main reason for this divisions of adherents for a particular god is the ‘protection of the faith’ dilemma faced by those who believe in the validity of the beliefs they hold dear. It is a veritable survival of the fittest contest when it comes to keeping the flame burning.
Where any religion plans to extend its influence, it has to resort to vilification of others and exaggeration of its own excellences. Pomp and publicity become more important than practice and faith.
Each religion promotes its god as the only one, and the rest are deemed fake, phoneys or figments of imagination. It is either my god; or their god, or a demon/devil posing as god, or anything except the possibility that it could be god.
The egoistic craving for power and competitive success has, in some cases, persuaded us to use religion as an instrument of torture and persecution. Instead of uniting mankind in a common endeavour, it has become a system of walled enclosures, guarded by hate and fanaticism.
The belief system surrounding any god has been built up over generations, and is based on ‘tried and true’ ways of interpreting events that brought about a collective belief. For example, what would Judaism be without the laws of Moses, or Islam without Prophet Mohammed’s (Praise Be To His Name) call to his people, or Christianity without Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, or Hinduism without its concept of an avatar, or Buddhism without Buddha?
I believe each religions attempts to impart holy ideals in the heart of man. But, man does not allow them to sprout and grow. Each religion has become an armed camp. Set in the path to self aggrandizement, trying to wean others into itself and preventing defections from it, religion, in many cases, is the root of chaos and conflict.
The teacher may have been inclusive, compassionate, a propagator of news ideas (so well demonstrated by Jesus and Prophet Mohammed) but not so the followers. Rigid rules and thought patterns were the outcomes of a system that wanted to retain its beliefs at all costs. At the cost of thought. At the cost of humanity.
This is a fair analysis of how we, as a adherent of a philosophical thought, let slide our sublime beliefs on the face of adversity: “But when the country was involved in the vicissitudes of history and the people were subjected to pressures and counter-pressures, the ideal suffered set-back; the abstractions of faith received concrete form and get crystallised into specific identifiable names and forms; each new attitude, or aptitude, each new concretisation, became a special sect, every theory got enveloped in its own shell.”
It is these feelings of elitism, of exclusivity, of being the chosen lot that makes religions the laughing stock of any rational person. And the fanatics who maintain that their god is the only right one puts paid to the idea that religion has any saving grace.
Yet, and I mean this emphatically, God remains a most vital aspect of humanity. Take away the dross of any system of beliefs and God becomes apparent. But first you have to take away the dross.
This means making an effort to wean yourself away from the conditioning and habits of what you have learnt as part of your culture’s interpretation of God.
One of the best ways of doing this is to answer the following questions honestly:
Do you believe God is omniscient, that He knows every thought of yours, even the ones you don’t want Him to know?
If yes, do you firmly believe that anything you do, think, or say, from the smallest act/thought/word to the grossest, is known to Him?
Do you act as if every act and thought of yours is known to Him?
Do you believe God is omnipresent? If yes, does this mean that God is in everything around and beyond you? Is this an intellectual belief or a belief that you live by? Do you treat anyone you meet as an embodiment of God, no matter how evil he is or what wrong he has done to you? Do you believe every living thing is an embodiment of God?
If you don’t, then God can’t be omnipresent and it puts paid to the idea that god is all-knowing and present everywhere. Then he can’t be god. No amount of qualifying can get past this idea – if God is to be omniscient and omnipresent, He must know what you think, say or do and if He is omnipresent, He is everywhere, in you, outside of you and in everything else you see.
Only after we have accepted these two ideas can we even begin to look at the omnipotence of God.
The practice of believing that God is omniscient and omnipresent is the royal road to godhead, not any other thing. All rites and rituals in any religion does but one thing, purify our thoughts enough for this one belief to take root in our minds; that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent.
God by any name should still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. This is the test of faith, of belief in your system and it should be what decides who believes in God and who doesn’t.
Notes to ponder
1. As of 2000, approximately 53% of the world's population identifies with one of the three Abrahamic religions (33% Christian, 20% Islam, <1% Judaism), 6% with Buddhism, 13% with Hinduism, 6% with traditional Chinese religion, 7% with various other religions, and less than 15% as non-religious. Most of these religious beliefs involve a god or gods
God by any other name would still be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient
2. The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea", ("goddess"), and '"deus", ("god"), and other Indo-European roots such as from the Sanskrit "deva", ("god"), "devi", ("goddess"), "divya", ("transcendental", "spiritual"). Related are words for "sky": the Latin "dies" ("day") and "divum" ("open sky"), and the Sanskrit "div," "diu" ("sky," "day," "shine"). Also related are "divine" and "divinity," from the Latin "divinus," from "divus." Khoda (Persian: خدا ) translates to God from Persian.
The English word "God" comes from Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (e.g. the German "Gott" — "God").
3. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
4. Some Jewish, Christian and Muslim Medieval philosophers, including Moses Maimonides and Pseudo-Dionysius, as well as many sages of other religions, developed what is termed as Apophatic Theology or the Via Negativa, the idea that one cannot posit attributes to God and can only be discussed by what God is not. For example, we cannot say that God "exists" in the usual sense of the term, because that term is human defined and God's qualities such as existence may not be accurately characterized by it. What we can safely say is that it cannot be proven empirically or otherwise that God is existent, therefore God is not non-existent. Likewise God's "wisdom" is of a fundamentally different kind from limited human perception. So we cannot use the word "wise" to describe God, because this implies he is wise in the way we usually describe humans being wise. However we can safely say that God is not ignorant. We should not say that God is One, because we may not truly understand his nature, but we can state that there is no multiplicity in God's being.
The above concept is also prevalent in Hinduism as seen by the phrase “neti, neti Brahman”, (this in not Brahman) in pursuing the ideal of what is Brahman and what is the jagat (world).
5. 'Process theology' is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), and 'Open theism' is a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.
In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. Process theology is compatible with panentheism, the concept that God contains the universe (pantheism) but also transcends it. God as the ultimate logician - God may be defined as the only entity, by definition, possessing the ability to reduce an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables and an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously
Bollywooding Hinduism
How do we know to be a Hindu? For the Indian Diaspora, the question is very important as we only appear to know of how to be a Hindu through Hindi (or other Indian language) movies.
For several decades, until around the 1970s, hagiographies -- such as the famous films on Tukaram (1936) and Dnyaneshwar/Jnaneshwar (1940) -- and a genre known as ‘mythologicals’ were common in Hindi and regional cinemas. [Vinay Lal}
We, especially those living out of India, grew up with such mythologicals. We knew what Ravana looked like and how he acted when he kidnapped Sita. We saw Rama break down and cry when faced with the loss of his beloved. We saw the pranks of the child Krishna, the teenager Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopikas when they were bathing, his courage and anger when he tackled his blustering uncle, a few pot-bellied wrestlers and a ‘mad’ elephant that succumbed too quickly and couldn’t act mad even if it wanted to.
We saw Shiva dance the tandev (badly, too) or ride a bull surrounded by idiotic and comical ganas, singing a Bollywood song (again badly), going off to get married; saw Brahma lose one of his head or spouting words of wisdom (mostly saying ‘go to Lord Vishnu for help’); saw Vishnu lolling on Sesh Naag, or throwing his sudarshan chakra to chop someone’s head off, or being benign to the devas as they stood around looking sorry and complaining about the asuras.
The chance of a quick buck overcame sanctity where these films were concerned. While money was spent like water on blockbusters and multi-starrers like Amar Akbar Anthony, Coolie and Mard, the mythologicals of the 70s had to do with badly painted props, lousy camera work and lowest of low-tech visual effects. Not to forget, the cheapest of the cheap actors.
Yet, we lapped it up. After all they were about gods, weren’t they? What I think is that they tainted our image and imagery of our god/gods, almost forever.
Narada, the messenger of the gods, is wicked, working his manipulations everywhere, giving us the epitome of the troublemaker (or the devil’s advocate, for those who want to read more into his onscreen character). Rakshasas look the same in all the movies – sometimes played by the same person in several movies.
Shiva is the slightly befuddled divine being who doesn’t really know what is happening. He has moments of clarity (or epiphanies?) and then does a bender, ridding the world of everything, including indiscriminately killing huge numbers of human being, animals and destroying everything else. Either he is comical or wrathful, or just wasting his time among the snows, lost in meditation (also done very badly).
Vishnu is partisan, only loving the devas (even if they are wrong), seen to be manipulative (or keenly aware of what needs to be done), omniscient but allowing trouble to develop which puts his devotees in all sorts of trouble. He is always dolled up in a near-see through dhoti, two fake arms sprouting from his shoulders, a mukut (helmet of gold) that gave him a stiff pose. Largely the actors that played him were skinny people without much definition, once, I think, an actor with a slight pot belly. On some occasions Vishnu was painted blue. This is not what God looks like but the images stay so strongly in our minds, nevertheless.
Bollywood put in a masala formula to mythologicals that has psychologically marred us, almost to the point we really started questioning the validity of our mythology, even our sacred books.
I haven’t kept up with the recent spate of mythologicals on the small screen but have seen a few and what I have seen is pathetic. Basically the 70s mythologicals have established the characters of our gods which continues to this day on the small screen, generally called the idiot box.
Shiva continues the role that was latched on to him and in some cases he has become just a dance deity. Other representations are stereotypes of the pathetic kind. Even the goddesses revert to type, bulging eyes and grim visage to show anger, the subdued archetypal Indian women to show grace, the benign mother role when protecting her devotee in trouble.
This is all a nautanki (a rustic play) that Bollywood squeezes time and again to fill someone’s pockets and we continue to lap it all up. These are not the gods thinking Hindus worship, love and adore in their daily lives.
Why do we continue such ‘devotion’ when it is apparent that we are seeing actors in roles of god in movies designed with one purpose – to make money? For the simple reason that we don’t have any pictures or images of Lord Rama or Krishna. All we have is the written word, and some description of these personages in them. And these actors provide a concrete image of what we think god should be.
Idol worship is an important part of Hinduism. Others may call it paganism, heathenism (it is their problem, anyway!) but it forms an integral part of the worship of a Hindu. While God/Brahman/the Absolute is an abstract idea, to worship we need something concrete or the mind will balk.
That is why we have pictorial representations of Shiva, Vishnu, and all the avatars as well as the many other gods and goddesses. We need an image to love and talk to.
But not in the Bollywood way, for God’s sake! God, according to Bollywood, now has a popular shape and form and can talk in a particular way, thanks to popularised roles in Hindi-language cinema. Similar considerations may, perhaps, be entertained about films in Tamil, Kannada, Gujarati, and other Indian languages. [Vinay Lal]
Some images are utterly silly – Biswajeet as Lord Rama in one of the 70s mythological is a classical case of Bollywood fitting God to an actor. Other actors adopt a role and make it their own - Telugu actor N. T. Rama Rao became a god on his own right among his followers. He played Lord Krishna in 17 movies and went on to become a extremely successful politician, almost divine in his victory over his opponents.
What other imagery of God do we have from Hindi movies that have crept into our mind-sets? We see Sudhir Dhalvi as Shirdi ke Sai Baba, Arun Govil as Lord Rama and some other actor as Krishna, depending on whether we are Mahabharata (the series) fans or fans of the numerous Hindi movies on Lord Krishna.
These mental images intrude, become assimilated and can become part of our worship. But we are luckier than some in India in the sense we don’t end up worshipping these actors as gods themselves. It is true – Arun Govil was mobbed as Lord Rama, camphor waved around him, his feet touched by ardent devotees. North India came to a standstill whenever Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayan was televised. This was in the 80s, I think.
Sudhir Dalvi almost became synonymous with Shirdi Sai Baba – some say they even see him in their mind’s eye as Shirdi Baba despite the fact we actually have existing pictures of Shirdi Sai Baba.
The Bollywood influence continues, unabated. So, how do we talk to God? We do it the Amitabh Bachchan style: starting with great anger and ending in tears as we spew out our vehemence for what God is doing to us.
Or we sing our hearts out, mimicking some Bollywood songster/actor (both tone and pose) who did a great onscreen job of a rendering a bhajan. Rishi Kapoor did a great one for Shirdi Baba, I believe.
Or if we are female, we adopt the subdued, tearful approach, putting our lives in the hand of the God, meek and humble, weak and unable.
Or nowadays we do it the modern way – talk to god as a good pal (or a kindly uncle), with a quick uplift of the eyes or head heavenwards, a silly smile a la Sharukh Khan, and a deprecating shrug.
Or assume the pose of a sadhu/rishi/jnani as we have seen in a movie.
The rendition of OM (mostly) is also very Bollywood. A Christchurch man, originally from Calcutta (Kalkot), once complained to me that a visiting swami was doing the Om all wrong – starting with an emphasis on A, a rising pitch on U and a long take on M. It was wrong he said – apparently because Bollywood does not do it that way. He was a bit upset when I confirmed that it was the proper way to render the Om.
Even in recent movies like Lagaan, the stereotype relation with god persists. Towards the end of the movies (before the big match) the villagers sing their heart out collectively to Krishna, seeking his help in defeating the English in cricket. As usual, it is the last ditch resort by the villagers. They did not pray together for rain, which, if god had sent their way, may or may not have led to their existing problem. They did not pray before jumping on the bandwagon to take down the English a peg or two. They did not pray much at all, except when they had no other recourse.
And that is the way we do it. Everything is OUR EFFORT but when we can’t get it done, we need God to chip in. This is what Bollywood has taught us and continues to teach us. Continue with our lives as normal, says Bollywood, but you can call on god when you run into trouble. Trouble is, it could be a bit too late by then, especially if what we are calling on for help is the Bollywood interpretation of what God is.
Also, by accepting the Bollywood aspect of the last-ditch resort to God, we prove false this old adage from Kabir time and again. Dukh me sumiran sab kare, sukh me kare na koi, Jo sukh me sumiran kare, ka he ko dukh hoi. (We pray when we are in trouble, forgetting to pray when we are not in trouble. If we remembered to pray when not beset with trouble, there never will be an opportunity for trouble to beset us).
Excerpts from Vinal Lal’s paper
Hagiographies and Mythologicals
The very first film in Gujarati in 1932 was on Narasimha Mehta, the fifteenth-century saint whose immensely popular bhajan, ‘Vaishnav Jan To Teine Kahiye Je Peer Parai Jane Re’ (‘He only can be called a Vaishnava who feels the sufferings of others as his own’), was adopted by Mohandas Gandhi as the supreme statement of the selfless humanising devotion which he brought to political action. The film was released less than two year after Gandhi’s famous Salt March, during which Gandhi and his companions sang Narsi’s profoundly moving bhajan.
Mirabai, the most famous woman bhakta poet of North India, was to become the subject of various cinematic explorations, the first of which appeared in 1933. The most memorable of those versions was perhaps the film “Meera” (1945), which introduced north Indian audiences to the Carnatic classical singer, M. S. Subhalakshmi, whose renditions of Meera bhajans have ever since mesmerised audiences and listeners.
The film Subhadra (Hindi/1946) dramatized the disagreement between Krishna and his stepbrother Balarama over the marriage of their sister Subhadra. Shri Krishnavataram (Telugu/Tamil, 1967) recounted major episodes from Krishna’s life.
Jai Santoshi Maa
The 1975 hit, Jai Santoshi Maa. To understand why Jai Santoshi Maa occupies a significant place in the history of mainstream cinema, we may begin with the rather remarkable fact that some viewers turned the cinema hall where it was being screened into a temple. There are reports of people leaving footwear outside when they walked into the cinema hall, and of others bowing when Santoshi Ma appeared on the screen.
Hindu scholars ask for 'kirtan' award at Grammys (excerpts)
London, April 29 (IANS) Hindu scholars are calling on Grammy Awards bosses to add a new category for traditional Indian music at the annual awards ceremony.
Officials at the Universal Society of Hinduism are urging Grammy bosses to include "Kirtan" as a field for future awards shows, beginning in 2010, reports contactmusic.com.
"In 2009, there were Grammys awarded in 110 music categories, covering 32 fields, including pop, rock, rap, country, new age, gospel, jazz, folk, world music, Hawaiian, Latin, reggae and blues, and we now think Indian music should be included," said Hindu scholar Rajan Zed.
"Kirtan is attracting large audiences in USA and Canada, and many other countries of the world, resulting in various new albums and creation of star kirtan artists....There should be Favorite Kirtan Artist of the Year award at the Grammys," he added.
Disney To Bring Hindu Mythological Superheroes To FilmView Comments
By admin
Posted on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:08am
Disney is reportedly in talks with India’s Vimanika Comics to bring Hindu mythological superheroes to film and television. It could see Karna brought to life on screen.
In mythology, Karna was the son of Kunti and sun-god Surya who was equipped with celestial arms and armor.However, Hindus are concerned.
Acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, while welcoming Hollywood to film ancient Hindu scriptural subjects, urged them to stay true to the story and the spirit of the scriptures. Zed said that changing ancient Sanskrit scriptures to fit the Hollywood machine were likely to hurt the Hindu sentiments.
For several decades, until around the 1970s, hagiographies -- such as the famous films on Tukaram (1936) and Dnyaneshwar/Jnaneshwar (1940) -- and a genre known as ‘mythologicals’ were common in Hindi and regional cinemas. [Vinay Lal}
We, especially those living out of India, grew up with such mythologicals. We knew what Ravana looked like and how he acted when he kidnapped Sita. We saw Rama break down and cry when faced with the loss of his beloved. We saw the pranks of the child Krishna, the teenager Krishna stealing the clothes of the gopikas when they were bathing, his courage and anger when he tackled his blustering uncle, a few pot-bellied wrestlers and a ‘mad’ elephant that succumbed too quickly and couldn’t act mad even if it wanted to.
We saw Shiva dance the tandev (badly, too) or ride a bull surrounded by idiotic and comical ganas, singing a Bollywood song (again badly), going off to get married; saw Brahma lose one of his head or spouting words of wisdom (mostly saying ‘go to Lord Vishnu for help’); saw Vishnu lolling on Sesh Naag, or throwing his sudarshan chakra to chop someone’s head off, or being benign to the devas as they stood around looking sorry and complaining about the asuras.
The chance of a quick buck overcame sanctity where these films were concerned. While money was spent like water on blockbusters and multi-starrers like Amar Akbar Anthony, Coolie and Mard, the mythologicals of the 70s had to do with badly painted props, lousy camera work and lowest of low-tech visual effects. Not to forget, the cheapest of the cheap actors.
Yet, we lapped it up. After all they were about gods, weren’t they? What I think is that they tainted our image and imagery of our god/gods, almost forever.
Narada, the messenger of the gods, is wicked, working his manipulations everywhere, giving us the epitome of the troublemaker (or the devil’s advocate, for those who want to read more into his onscreen character). Rakshasas look the same in all the movies – sometimes played by the same person in several movies.
Shiva is the slightly befuddled divine being who doesn’t really know what is happening. He has moments of clarity (or epiphanies?) and then does a bender, ridding the world of everything, including indiscriminately killing huge numbers of human being, animals and destroying everything else. Either he is comical or wrathful, or just wasting his time among the snows, lost in meditation (also done very badly).
Vishnu is partisan, only loving the devas (even if they are wrong), seen to be manipulative (or keenly aware of what needs to be done), omniscient but allowing trouble to develop which puts his devotees in all sorts of trouble. He is always dolled up in a near-see through dhoti, two fake arms sprouting from his shoulders, a mukut (helmet of gold) that gave him a stiff pose. Largely the actors that played him were skinny people without much definition, once, I think, an actor with a slight pot belly. On some occasions Vishnu was painted blue. This is not what God looks like but the images stay so strongly in our minds, nevertheless.
Bollywood put in a masala formula to mythologicals that has psychologically marred us, almost to the point we really started questioning the validity of our mythology, even our sacred books.
I haven’t kept up with the recent spate of mythologicals on the small screen but have seen a few and what I have seen is pathetic. Basically the 70s mythologicals have established the characters of our gods which continues to this day on the small screen, generally called the idiot box.
Shiva continues the role that was latched on to him and in some cases he has become just a dance deity. Other representations are stereotypes of the pathetic kind. Even the goddesses revert to type, bulging eyes and grim visage to show anger, the subdued archetypal Indian women to show grace, the benign mother role when protecting her devotee in trouble.
This is all a nautanki (a rustic play) that Bollywood squeezes time and again to fill someone’s pockets and we continue to lap it all up. These are not the gods thinking Hindus worship, love and adore in their daily lives.
Why do we continue such ‘devotion’ when it is apparent that we are seeing actors in roles of god in movies designed with one purpose – to make money? For the simple reason that we don’t have any pictures or images of Lord Rama or Krishna. All we have is the written word, and some description of these personages in them. And these actors provide a concrete image of what we think god should be.
Idol worship is an important part of Hinduism. Others may call it paganism, heathenism (it is their problem, anyway!) but it forms an integral part of the worship of a Hindu. While God/Brahman/the Absolute is an abstract idea, to worship we need something concrete or the mind will balk.
That is why we have pictorial representations of Shiva, Vishnu, and all the avatars as well as the many other gods and goddesses. We need an image to love and talk to.
But not in the Bollywood way, for God’s sake! God, according to Bollywood, now has a popular shape and form and can talk in a particular way, thanks to popularised roles in Hindi-language cinema. Similar considerations may, perhaps, be entertained about films in Tamil, Kannada, Gujarati, and other Indian languages. [Vinay Lal]
Some images are utterly silly – Biswajeet as Lord Rama in one of the 70s mythological is a classical case of Bollywood fitting God to an actor. Other actors adopt a role and make it their own - Telugu actor N. T. Rama Rao became a god on his own right among his followers. He played Lord Krishna in 17 movies and went on to become a extremely successful politician, almost divine in his victory over his opponents.
What other imagery of God do we have from Hindi movies that have crept into our mind-sets? We see Sudhir Dhalvi as Shirdi ke Sai Baba, Arun Govil as Lord Rama and some other actor as Krishna, depending on whether we are Mahabharata (the series) fans or fans of the numerous Hindi movies on Lord Krishna.
These mental images intrude, become assimilated and can become part of our worship. But we are luckier than some in India in the sense we don’t end up worshipping these actors as gods themselves. It is true – Arun Govil was mobbed as Lord Rama, camphor waved around him, his feet touched by ardent devotees. North India came to a standstill whenever Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayan was televised. This was in the 80s, I think.
Sudhir Dalvi almost became synonymous with Shirdi Sai Baba – some say they even see him in their mind’s eye as Shirdi Baba despite the fact we actually have existing pictures of Shirdi Sai Baba.
The Bollywood influence continues, unabated. So, how do we talk to God? We do it the Amitabh Bachchan style: starting with great anger and ending in tears as we spew out our vehemence for what God is doing to us.
Or we sing our hearts out, mimicking some Bollywood songster/actor (both tone and pose) who did a great onscreen job of a rendering a bhajan. Rishi Kapoor did a great one for Shirdi Baba, I believe.
Or if we are female, we adopt the subdued, tearful approach, putting our lives in the hand of the God, meek and humble, weak and unable.
Or nowadays we do it the modern way – talk to god as a good pal (or a kindly uncle), with a quick uplift of the eyes or head heavenwards, a silly smile a la Sharukh Khan, and a deprecating shrug.
Or assume the pose of a sadhu/rishi/jnani as we have seen in a movie.
The rendition of OM (mostly) is also very Bollywood. A Christchurch man, originally from Calcutta (Kalkot), once complained to me that a visiting swami was doing the Om all wrong – starting with an emphasis on A, a rising pitch on U and a long take on M. It was wrong he said – apparently because Bollywood does not do it that way. He was a bit upset when I confirmed that it was the proper way to render the Om.
Even in recent movies like Lagaan, the stereotype relation with god persists. Towards the end of the movies (before the big match) the villagers sing their heart out collectively to Krishna, seeking his help in defeating the English in cricket. As usual, it is the last ditch resort by the villagers. They did not pray together for rain, which, if god had sent their way, may or may not have led to their existing problem. They did not pray before jumping on the bandwagon to take down the English a peg or two. They did not pray much at all, except when they had no other recourse.
And that is the way we do it. Everything is OUR EFFORT but when we can’t get it done, we need God to chip in. This is what Bollywood has taught us and continues to teach us. Continue with our lives as normal, says Bollywood, but you can call on god when you run into trouble. Trouble is, it could be a bit too late by then, especially if what we are calling on for help is the Bollywood interpretation of what God is.
Also, by accepting the Bollywood aspect of the last-ditch resort to God, we prove false this old adage from Kabir time and again. Dukh me sumiran sab kare, sukh me kare na koi, Jo sukh me sumiran kare, ka he ko dukh hoi. (We pray when we are in trouble, forgetting to pray when we are not in trouble. If we remembered to pray when not beset with trouble, there never will be an opportunity for trouble to beset us).
Excerpts from Vinal Lal’s paper
Hagiographies and Mythologicals
The very first film in Gujarati in 1932 was on Narasimha Mehta, the fifteenth-century saint whose immensely popular bhajan, ‘Vaishnav Jan To Teine Kahiye Je Peer Parai Jane Re’ (‘He only can be called a Vaishnava who feels the sufferings of others as his own’), was adopted by Mohandas Gandhi as the supreme statement of the selfless humanising devotion which he brought to political action. The film was released less than two year after Gandhi’s famous Salt March, during which Gandhi and his companions sang Narsi’s profoundly moving bhajan.
Mirabai, the most famous woman bhakta poet of North India, was to become the subject of various cinematic explorations, the first of which appeared in 1933. The most memorable of those versions was perhaps the film “Meera” (1945), which introduced north Indian audiences to the Carnatic classical singer, M. S. Subhalakshmi, whose renditions of Meera bhajans have ever since mesmerised audiences and listeners.
The film Subhadra (Hindi/1946) dramatized the disagreement between Krishna and his stepbrother Balarama over the marriage of their sister Subhadra. Shri Krishnavataram (Telugu/Tamil, 1967) recounted major episodes from Krishna’s life.
Jai Santoshi Maa
The 1975 hit, Jai Santoshi Maa. To understand why Jai Santoshi Maa occupies a significant place in the history of mainstream cinema, we may begin with the rather remarkable fact that some viewers turned the cinema hall where it was being screened into a temple. There are reports of people leaving footwear outside when they walked into the cinema hall, and of others bowing when Santoshi Ma appeared on the screen.
Hindu scholars ask for 'kirtan' award at Grammys (excerpts)
London, April 29 (IANS) Hindu scholars are calling on Grammy Awards bosses to add a new category for traditional Indian music at the annual awards ceremony.
Officials at the Universal Society of Hinduism are urging Grammy bosses to include "Kirtan" as a field for future awards shows, beginning in 2010, reports contactmusic.com.
"In 2009, there were Grammys awarded in 110 music categories, covering 32 fields, including pop, rock, rap, country, new age, gospel, jazz, folk, world music, Hawaiian, Latin, reggae and blues, and we now think Indian music should be included," said Hindu scholar Rajan Zed.
"Kirtan is attracting large audiences in USA and Canada, and many other countries of the world, resulting in various new albums and creation of star kirtan artists....There should be Favorite Kirtan Artist of the Year award at the Grammys," he added.
Disney To Bring Hindu Mythological Superheroes To FilmView Comments
By admin
Posted on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:08am
Disney is reportedly in talks with India’s Vimanika Comics to bring Hindu mythological superheroes to film and television. It could see Karna brought to life on screen.
In mythology, Karna was the son of Kunti and sun-god Surya who was equipped with celestial arms and armor.However, Hindus are concerned.
Acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, while welcoming Hollywood to film ancient Hindu scriptural subjects, urged them to stay true to the story and the spirit of the scriptures. Zed said that changing ancient Sanskrit scriptures to fit the Hollywood machine were likely to hurt the Hindu sentiments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)