Snow Dune
posted by just sam at 12:37 AM
8 comments
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
Santiago de Compostela
My turning point was my pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela. It was then that I, who had dedicated most of my life to penetrate the 'secrets' of the universe, realized that there are no secrets. Life is and will always be a mystery. We have to follow the omens, and pay attention to others. Life is a constant miracle, and this miracle manifests itself in encounters with other people.
After the pilgrimage, I simplified my spiritual search a lot, and instead of searching for answers, I started to understand that life itself is an answer.
For Paulo Coelho, the only crime against life is to believe in the word 'impossible'. According to him, each person has a role to play, a life pattern that is uniquely designed for an individual. And fulfillment lies in following and understanding that pattern, being who you are, instead of walking on the trodden path.
Q: Have you ever seen an angel? What are angels really?
Yes, I've seen angels. They are what everybody knows: messengers of God. Sparks of the Divine Light. But they use the most unusual ways to talk to us—through other people, for example.
Q: Carlos Castaneda also wrote of sorcery. Is there any similarity between your ideas and his?
Castaneda played a major role in my youth. As for the ideas, I tend to believe that the universal knowledge is accessible to anybody through faith. Castaneda concentrated his work on a more specific path.
Q: What has been the driving force in your life?
Knowing that everybody has a purpose. We know when we are closer to our goal by listening to our heart. So, my driving force is to fulfill my destiny.
Q: Does an author cultivate writing, or is he divinely gifted?
You need discipline and inspiration, rigor and mercy, earth and heaven. You need to have a clear goal, but you also need to allow yourself to be guided to get there.
Q: In Veronica Decides to Die, you have portrayed a young girl who tries to commit suicide...
No, it's not a book about suicide. It is about the necessity to accept our differences, instead of trying to fulfill other people's destiny (like the destiny that our parents choose for us, for example). When, as a young man, I insisted on being a writer, my family sent me to a mental institution—not only once, but three times. Veronica is based on this experience. We must stop following the 'Manual of Good Behavior', this non-written book that guides our life, and dare a little bit more. Veronica is bored, because she realizes that today is the same as yesterday, and it will be the same tomorrow.
there are some battles that kill you, and some that make you stronger. For me, it was the latter. I never saw myself as a victim of circumstances, but as an adventurer who must, from time to time, cross troubled waters.
Q: The Alchemist has been the most popular of all your books. Which of your books do you personally think is the best?
I rate all my books A+, because I put the best of myself in them. That means my books are better than myself.
Q: Have you been inspired by any authors?
Yes. Castaneda, Henry Miller, William Blake. But, above all, Jorge Amado and Jorge Luis Borges.
: Your books portray a lot of sensitivity. Sometimes even pathos. A trend not often seen in many of today's New Age books, Which focus more on a feel-good, rose-tinted worldview. What makes you different?
I don't want to judge other people's books. My books only portray my experience, not my wisdom. First, because I am not wise—as I said earlier, everybody knows everything or nobody knows anything, because God is democratic. Second, because experience is all you have and must share. This is our reason to be here: to share. A book can act as a catalyst, making people understand that they are not alone. Several authors made me understand that, and I felt relieved during some critical moments in my life. A book can be a good companion. But it is up to each one of us to learn from our own experiences.
Q: What do you as an author try to communicate?
My soul. My love. My experience. And one sentence: "Who dares, wins."
posted by just sam at 11:48 PM
4 comments
Random thoughts on secularism
STORY
There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell you. I am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa, really. It is nothing but ahimsa -sarva-bhootebhyo abhayam. l am taking this sanyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to all the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that I will not hurt any of them - kayena vacha manasaa. That is sannyasa. I am aware of this. I am a sannyasi .
Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a Padri and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are religious people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue with me about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can argue with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with people who only want to convince me.
So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and talk to them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to beat me. Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue. I implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do something". I appeal to him.
He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am secular. (Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to him. Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me positively. Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive me. Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.
And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not just a weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take care of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself. The best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband does. And therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)
But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They have to be protected and you should not fight against them". (Prolonged cheers)
"Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me. You cannot be like this".
This is the situation that prevails in India. You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the constitution has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged cheers) My dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that dharma has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector does not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That is all. (Prolonged cheers)
SENTIMENT AND SECULARISM
The State has got the responsibility to protect the religious sentiment of all the people. That I consider is secularism.
I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian culture to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to be there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.
NOTHING IS SECULAR EVERYTHING IS SACRED
After a millennium of inertia and torpor brought about by the Islamic invasions and rule (c.1000 A.D onwards) and marginally better British Imperial Rule (c.1757-1947), an unprecedented Hindu awakening is slowly taking place in India today which has great positive potential and can confer immense benefit to not only the people of India but to the whole of humanity as well.
While this awakening has definite social, economic and political aspects, the universalistic ramifications of the Hindu renaissance arise from its spiritual aspect – of seeking to imbue all life and its activities with a sanctity and impart a vision, of this whole world as a manifestation of divinity, where nothing is secular; everything is sacred.
INDIA IS SECULAR BECAUSE INDIA IS HINDU
India is secular because India is Hindu. It can be added as a corollary that India is a democracy also because India is Hindu. If Hindu society permits this free for all any further, the days of Secularism and Democracy in this country are numbered. Let the Hindus unite and save themselves, their democratic polity, their secular state, and their Sanãtana Dharma for a new cycle of civilization, not only for themselves but also
There is another important fact in the Indian context, I tell you. I am a Swami committed to ahimsa. A sannyasi's vow is ahimsa, really. It is nothing but ahimsa -sarva-bhootebhyo abhayam. l am taking this sanyasa and offer a complete assurance to all the beings and to all the devataas, that I am not a competitor to any of them and that I will not hurt any of them - kayena vacha manasaa. That is sannyasa. I am aware of this. I am a sannyasi .
Now I sit in Rishikesh. These two people come to me. One is a Padri and the other is a Moulvi. I invite both of them. They are religious people. I respect them. I give them seats. They try to argue with me about something. Generally, I do not argue with them. You can argue with people whom you can convince. I don't want to argue with people who only want to convince me.
So I don't argue. I enjoy their company. I sit with them and talk to them. They pick up a quarrel with me. And then they begin to beat me. Please note that, this is just an imaginary tale. And there is a policeman standing there. They go on beating me black and blue. I implore to the policeman, "Please stop them. I am committed to ahimsa. I don't want to fight them back. You please do something". I appeal to him.
He says, This is a matter between religious people. I am secular. (Prolonged cheers) I am supposed not to interfere". I appeal to him. Twice, thrice I request him. He does not respond to me positively. Then I think I have to protect myself. My shaastra will forgive me. Even though I am given to ahimsa, still I can protect myself.
And therefore I thought I will take care of myself. I am not just a weakling. I have got enough strength. And therefore, I can take care of these two fellows plus one more. I began to defend myself. The best form of defence is offence. That is what every husband does. And therefore, you defend yourself. (Laughter)
But the policeman stops me and says, They are minorities. They have to be protected and you should not fight against them". (Prolonged cheers)
"Hey, policeman, you are supposed to protect me. You are the Government. You are the State. You are supposed to protect me. You cannot be like this".
This is the situation that prevails in India. You have to change the whole blessed thing here. If the constitution has to be changed, let it be changed for good. (Prolonged cheers) My dharma is not violence. It does not allow conversion. And that dharma has to be protected. The State has to protect. If the protector does not protect, people should have a new protector to protect. That is all. (Prolonged cheers)
SENTIMENT AND SECULARISM
The State has got the responsibility to protect the religious sentiment of all the people. That I consider is secularism.
I want the Islamic culture to be there. I want the Christian culture to be there. I want the Hindu culture and every other culture to be there. Every culture is to be protected. That is secularism.
NOTHING IS SECULAR EVERYTHING IS SACRED
After a millennium of inertia and torpor brought about by the Islamic invasions and rule (c.1000 A.D onwards) and marginally better British Imperial Rule (c.1757-1947), an unprecedented Hindu awakening is slowly taking place in India today which has great positive potential and can confer immense benefit to not only the people of India but to the whole of humanity as well.
While this awakening has definite social, economic and political aspects, the universalistic ramifications of the Hindu renaissance arise from its spiritual aspect – of seeking to imbue all life and its activities with a sanctity and impart a vision, of this whole world as a manifestation of divinity, where nothing is secular; everything is sacred.
INDIA IS SECULAR BECAUSE INDIA IS HINDU
India is secular because India is Hindu. It can be added as a corollary that India is a democracy also because India is Hindu. If Hindu society permits this free for all any further, the days of Secularism and Democracy in this country are numbered. Let the Hindus unite and save themselves, their democratic polity, their secular state, and their Sanãtana Dharma for a new cycle of civilization, not only for themselves but also
posted by just sam at 8:06 PM
2 comments
secularism definitions
Definitions of Secularism on the Web:
Secularists, regardless of their religious preferences, believe that religious considerations should be excluded from civic affairs and public education (or private education that claims to be inclusive, ie Georgetown?).
studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm
the neutrality of the State, local government and all public services in matters relating to one or more religions or to one or more creeds. In France, the secularity of the State was established in 1905 by the law of separation of Church and State.
www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/DUDH/english/glossaire.html
A belief system that denies the reality of God and religion and instead identifies itself with the world and human viewpoints.
www.scu.edu/pm/resources/theoglossary/print.html
a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1
----Secularism means: * in philosophy, the belief that one's own life can be best lived, and the universe best understood, with little or no reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.* in society, any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society.* in government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
Secularists, regardless of their religious preferences, believe that religious considerations should be excluded from civic affairs and public education (or private education that claims to be inclusive, ie Georgetown?).
studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm
the neutrality of the State, local government and all public services in matters relating to one or more religions or to one or more creeds. In France, the secularity of the State was established in 1905 by the law of separation of Church and State.
www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/DUDH/english/glossaire.html
A belief system that denies the reality of God and religion and instead identifies itself with the world and human viewpoints.
www.scu.edu/pm/resources/theoglossary/print.html
a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn2.1
----Secularism means: * in philosophy, the belief that one's own life can be best lived, and the universe best understood, with little or no reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.* in society, any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society.* in government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religio
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
posted by just sam at 8:05 PM
2 comments
Interview with Swami Dayananda
Introduction
It is a unique characteristic of Advaita Vedanta that most of its prominent modern figures, those who stand out as radiant examples of the power and glory of Absolute realization, generally seem to have had little, if any, formal traditional training. Ramana Maharshi, for instance, probably the most universally recognized teacher of Advaita in the twentieth century, was spontaneously enlightened at the age of sixteen with no prior spiritual practice or study. The fiery Advaita master and author of I Am That, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, realized the Absolute after only three years with his guru. And in speaking with a number of contemporary Advaita teachers for this issue, we were intrigued to find that one thing almost all of these individuals have in common is a striking independence from the monastic orders, teaching systems and sacred texts of the very tradition from which their teachings spring.
But Advaita Vedanta is, in fact, a 1,300-year-old tradition that traces its roots even further back to the Upanishads, a collection of divinely inspired scriptures over 2,500 years old. Embodying the Hindu philosophy of nonduality, which holds that only the one Absolute, undivided Self is ultimately real, Advaita has several monastic orders, a rich body of literature and a long history of formal philosophical discourse. Given that our own exploration of Advaita for this issue of WIE had exposed us to such a diverse array of contemporary teachers and teachings, we had grown increasingly curious about what someone classically trained in the traditional methods and doctrine would have to say in response to our questions. It was our quest for such a traditionalist that ultimately landed us in the jungle of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu, at the ashram of Swami Dayananda Saraswati.
Swami Dayananda is, by his own description, a traditional teacher of Advaita Vedanta. A close disciple of the widely respected late Vedanta teacher Swami Chinmayananda, he began teaching over thirty years ago after a disciplined spiritual search that included both intensive study of the classical scriptures and several years on retreat in the Himalayan foothills. In that time, he has gained an illustrious reputation both in India and abroad as a fierce upholder of the tradition. He has published twenty-one books, including several translations of and commentaries on the traditional texts, and has established three ashrams (two in India and one in the United States) where his intensive courses in Vedanta are taught year-round.
Surrounded by rainforest about thirty miles outside Coimbatore, Swami Dayananda's newest ashram, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, is a sprawling complex of halls and dormitories capable of accommodating approximately three hundred people. At the time of our visit there were about one hundred students in residence for a three-year course, including thirty or so Westerners, many of whom, we learned, had left behind successful careers in order to attend. In addition to hosting these longer, residential courses, the ashram also receives many distinguished short-term visitors including, we were told, some of India's biggest movie stars and political leaders, the former President of India among them.
During our first day there we had an opportunity to sit in on some of Swami Dayananda's classes, and when we did, it became apparent to us that, in his desire to perpetuate the tradition, what Swami Dayananda has established is not the contemplative retreat environment one might expect to find at the ashram of an Indian guru, but rather a sort of spiritual academy, its goal being first and foremost the acquisition of knowledge about Vedanta. Students' days are spent in the classroom, seated on the floor behind short wooden desks, listening to Swami Dayananda read from the ancient Sanskrit texts, pausing after each verse to give often elaborate commentary. When students are not in class or engaged in their ashram duties, they are either studying independently or meeting with Swami Dayananda, who in addition to teaching three long classes each day makes himself available between classes for less formal discussions.
What we found most intriguing about Swami Dayananda's intensely scholastic approach was its unusual lack of emphasis on spiritual practice. The only formal practice period at the ashram is thirty minutes of meditation in the morning. We would soon learn that spiritual practices have no significant place in the program for one simple reason: to Swami Dayananda, they are essentially irrelevant to the path. The one thing that is relevant, he feels, is study—sincere study of the sacred texts of Vedanta.
According to Swami Dayananda, most contemporary exponents of Advaita Vedanta are seriously misguided in their approach. He feels that in overemphasizing the pursuit of transcendent experience, they have missed the entire point of the ancient teachings. In traditional Advaita Vedanta, he asserts, it is held that sacred scripture itself is the only reliable means to clear away ignorance and reveal direct knowledge of the Absolute. He writes: "Just as the eyes are the direct means to know color and form, Vedanta is the direct means . . . to know one's true nature and resolve confusions regarding Atma [the Self]." It is therefore only by applying ourselves to a disciplined study of the revealed words of the great sages, he feels, that we can attain the knowledge that will liberate us from delusion.
Fueled by his conviction in the supreme efficacy of scriptural study, Swami Dayananda is unabashed in his criticism of "mystics" who say that the way to enlightenment is through spiritual experience alone. In fact, both in his writings and in one of our dialogues with him, he even went so far as to express doubt about the realization of the widely revered but unschooled modern sage Ramana Maharshi—adding that there may be millions of Indian householders with a similar level of attainment!
While such statements initially took us by surprise, we would later discover through dialogues with a number of leading Western Advaita scholars that similar sentiments are held by many Advaita traditionalists. Even one of the living Shankaracharyas—the head of one of the four monastic institutions allegedly established by Advaita's founder, Shankara—also denies the validity of Ramana's attainment, apparently for the simple reason that someone who wasn't formally trained in Vedanta couldn't possibly be fully enlightened!
Our visit to Swami Dayananda's ashram turned out to be a fascinating education. Over the course of our three-day stay, we met formally with Swami Dayananda four times for what turned out to be a wide-ranging series of dialogues. During that time, what had begun as an ashram curiosity—a small group of Westerners with an American spiritual teacher who had come to interview their guru—rapidly escalated into one of the most talked about and well-attended events at the ashram. From our second session onward, the meeting room was overflowing out the door as disciples crowded in to listen to the discussion. And between meetings, we regularly found ourselves in conversation with students eager both to discuss points that had arisen in the interview and to suggest questions for the next round.
Throughout the sessions, Swami Dayananda revealed himself to be every bit the traditionalist we had expected, sharing in his answers to our questions his comprehensive understanding of both the tradition itself and the subtleties of Advaita philosophy. Yet while we left his ashram in many respects much clearer about the history and doctrines of the Advaita tradition, our visit had also raised some fascinating questions. Wasn't it intriguing, we found ourselves asking as our taxi made its way back to the airport, that within a tradition dedicated to the profound and radical realization of the Absolute, there are learned and devoted authorities who feel compelled to distance themselves from the powerfully realized mystics to whom many of that tradition's own followers look for inspiration? If, in so doing, they are upholding the "purity" of the tradition, what does that mean about the nature of enlightenment, to which the Advaita path is intended to lead?
Ramana Maharshi said, "No learning or knowledge of scriptures is necessary to know the Self, as no man requires a mirror to see himself." Swami Dayananda, on the other hand, had just told us that "we have no means of knowledge for the direct understanding of Self-realization, and therefore Vedanta is the means of knowledge that has to be employed for that purpose. No other means of knowledge will work."
What is enlightenment? Is it simply a shift in understanding that can be brought about, as Swami Dayananda insists, entirely through the study of sacred texts? Or is it, as some of the most radiant examples of this powerful teaching have proclaimed, the world-shattering revelation of a mystery that lies forever beyond the mind?
–Craig Hamilton
Interview
The interview that follows was excerpted from over eighty pages of transcripts documenting a series of dialogues between Swami Dayananda and Andrew Cohen in February 1998.
What is Advaita?
Andrew Cohen: In the last twenty years or so there has been great interest in Advaita in the West, as you know, and it's my impression that there has also been a lot of confusion about this teaching, that it has been very misunderstood and even abused in some cases. We wanted to speak with you so that we could present an authoritative traditional view. So, to begin, could you please explain what the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta is?
Swami Dayananda: The word "advaita" is a very important word. It's a word that negates dvaita, which means "two." The "a" is a negative particle, so the meaning would be "that which is nondual." And it reveals the philosophy that all that is here is One, which means that there is nothing other than that One, nor is it made up of any parts. It's a whole without parts, and That they call "Brahman" [the Absolute], and That you are—because the nondual cannot be different from you, the inquirer. If it is different from you, then it is dual; then you are the subject and it is the object. So it has got to be you. And therefore, if you don't recognize that, you'll miss out on being the Whole.
AC: Can you please explain the historical background?
SD: The Vedas [sacred Hindu scriptures] are the most ancient body of knowledge we have in humanity. And the tradition looks upon the Vedas as not having been authored by any given person, but given to the ancient rishis [seers] as revealed knowledge. It is considered that the Vedas are traced ultimately to the Lord as the source of all knowledge, and it is this body of knowledge that is the source of Advaita. The Upanishads [the concluding portions of the Vedas] talk about God realization—and they not only talk about it, they methodically teach it. What I am doing today is what is taught in the Upanishads. The Upanishads themselves are a teaching and also a teaching tradition. And it's a communicable tradition—there's nothing mystical about it.
But I don't think advaita is only in the Vedas; I think it's everywhere—wherever there is the idea, "You are the Whole." That is advaita, whether it is in Sanskrit, Latin or Hebrew. But the advantage in Vedanta is that it can be taught and it is taught. We have created a teaching tradition, and it has grown. Whereas in America, when suddenly people turn vegetarian, for example, all that they have is tofu and alfalfa and a few other things, because there's no tradition of vegetarian cooking. It takes time. You can't create a tradition overnight!
AC: Who are considered to be the foremost exponents of the Advaita teachings?
SD: There have been a lot of teachers who have maintained this tradition whose names we don't know. But from the Upanishads down we can say: Vyasa, Gaudapada, Shankara, Suresvara—these are the names we repeat every day. But Shankara occupies a central position because of his written commentary. It is the written commentary that gives you the tradition of teaching and the method of teaching, and the method is very important in this tradition: How do you teach? There are a lot of pitfalls in this process, and one of them is the limitation of the language—the linguistic limitation. But the teaching has to be conveyed through words, which means that you must have a method—a method by which you can be sure that the student understands, because the enlightenment takes place as the teaching takes place and not afterwards. That's the tradition. So Shankara occupies an important place because of his commentaries, because he left written commentaries on palm leaves for us. But I wouldn't say that the other teachers were any less important.
AC: Before Shankara there were no written commentaries?
SD: There were some. In fact, what I'm teaching every morning now is a commentary on one of the Upanishads, by Shankara's own teacher's teacher, Gaudapada. There are a few others also—Vyasa's sutras. These sutras are analytical works in a style of literature that has very brief statements, one after the other, so that you can memorize them. But these, again, are part of the tradition of teaching, so they are always backed up. You write the sutra and then you teach it to a group of people, and these together are what is handed down. Then, when you recite the sutra, you remember what we call "the Tradition." In fact, the whole of Advaita Vedanta is analyzed in the sutras.
The Self is already present in all experience
AC: Why is it that you feel the study of the scriptures, rather than spiritual experience, is the most direct means to Self-realization?
SD: Self-realization, as I said, is the discovery that "the Self is the whole"—that you are the Lord; in fact, you are God, the cause of everything.
Now nobody lacks the experience of advaita, of that which is nondual—there's always advaita. But any experience is only as good as one's ability to interpret it. A doctor examining you interprets your condition in one way, a layperson in another. Therefore, you need interpretation, and your knowledge is only as valid as the means of knowledge you are using for that purpose.
As the small self, we have no means of knowledge for the direct understanding of Self-realization, and therefore Vedanta is the means of knowledge that has to be employed for that purpose. No other means of knowledge will work because, for this kind of knowledge, our powers of perception and inference alone are not sufficient.
So I find that by itself there is nothing more dumb than experience in this world. In fact, it is experience that has destroyed us.
AC: It has been my experience as a teacher that for most human beings, generally speaking, simply hearing the teaching is not enough. Usually they do need to have some kind of experience that makes the meaning of the words obvious in a very direct, experiential way. And then the person says, "Oh, my goodness, now I understand! I've heard this for so many years, but now I recognize the truth of it."
SD: Yes, but even that experience is useless without the correct interpretation. Suppose your sense of being a separate individual falls away for a moment or ten minutes or even an hour, and then suddenly that apparent duality seems to come back again. Does that mean the one true Self gets displaced? Of course not! Then why should enlightenment require an experience? Enlightenment doesn't depend upon experiences; it depends upon my shedding my error and ignorance—that is what it depends upon, and nothing else.
People say that advaita is eternal, that it is timeless, and at the same time they say that they are going through an experience of it at a particular time and under certain conditions. That's not traditional! But that is what we hear everywhere. The tradition says: "What you see right now is advaita."
Suppose a fellow has an experience and then he comes out and says, "I was one hour eternal." No time means timeless, and timeless means eternity. Whether it is one hour eternal or one moment eternal, it is always the same. So confidence in truth cannot depend upon a state of experience. Confidence in truth is in your clarity of what is. Otherwise what will happen is, "I was non dual Brahman for one hour and then I came back and now it's gone." Then every thought becomes a nightmare because when I am not in nirvikalpa samadhi [ecstatic absorption in nondual consciousness], then I cannot even relate to the world; I have to be stoned forever, you know? Whereas enlightenment is just knowing what is. That is called sahaja, which means "natural"; it means just seeing clearly. If people insist on having a particular experience, that simply means that they have not understood the teaching. Even right now, for example, we are interpreting our experiences. For example, you are experiencing me right now.
AC: True.
SD: And your experience seems to reveal two things: one is the subject, the other is the object. But let us suppose that both of them happen to be one reality.
AC: All right.
SD: Then you don't have any lack of raw material here. The experience of seeing me or seeing anybody, seeing anything or hearing anything, thinking about anything—inside, outside, whatever—that experience is advaita. And if that is so, then we are not lacking experience, and therefore we need not wait for any experience to come. Whatever experience you encounter within yourself, that experience reveals advaita, reveals nonduality. And if your interpretation of that experience is that there is an object other than yourself, then it is your interpretation itself that is duality. Therefore, it's a problem of cognition, and that problem of cognition is to be solved.
AC: Cognition of?
SD: Of this nondual! Am I talking about something that is absolutely unknown to me? No. Unknown to anyone? Not at all. Right now, for instance, you see me and you say, "Swami is sitting here." How do you know? You say, "Because I see you, I hear you; therefore you are here." Therefore I am evident to you because you have a means of knowing, you have a means of seeing, you have a means of hearing; therefore Swami is. Swami is because he's evident to you, just as anything is because it's evident to you. Sun is, moon is, star is, space is, time is—all these are evident to you.
The same is true of your experience of yourself. Suppose I ask you, "Do you have a physical body?" "Yes," you'll say—because it's evident to you. "Do you have any memory of being in such-and-such a place?" Yes—because it's evident to you. To whom are all these evident? To you! To yourself. That means you are self-evident.
When are you not self-evident? Tell me—when? It is because you are self-evident that you don't need to become self-evident at any time. All my experiences are because of my self-evidence. Therefore, the Self is already experienced—that's what I say. Self is experienced as the ultimate content of every experience. I say, in fact, that our very experience is the Self.
In all experiences, therefore, what is invariably present is consciousness, and no object is independent of that. And consciousness is not dependent on and has none of the attributes of any particular object. Consciousness is consciousness, and while it is in everything, it transcends everything. That's why I say: this is advaita, this is nondual, this is Brahman, this is limitless; timewise it is limitless, spacewise it is limitless. And therefore it is Brahman, and therefore you are everything already. This is the teaching, and what it means is that I need not wait for any experience because every experience is Brahman, every experience is limitless.
AC: But this is a subtle point that is not necessarily easy to grasp without some previous direct experience of the nondual.
SD: If the person doesn't see, then that means I have to teach further; or maybe they do see but in spite of that they say, "I still have got some cobwebs here or there." But that is not a problem; they just need to be cleared away.
First, you have an insight that is knowing, and then, as difficulties arise, we take care of them. I don't say it is not a matter of experience, but I say that experience is always the very nature of yourself. Consciousness is experience, and every experience reveals the fact of your being Self-evident. And what is Self-evident is, by definition, nondual. So subject and object are already the same.
Here is a wave, for instance, that has a human mind. It thinks, "I am a small wave." Then it becomes a big wave, swallowing in the process many other waves, and begins boasting, "I am a big wave." Then it loses its form, and again becomes small—files a "Chapter Thirteen," as you say in America, you know, bankruptcy—and now it wants to somehow get to the shore. But from the shore, other waves are pushing into the ocean, and from the ocean, waves are pushing to the shore, and this poor little wave is caught in between, sandwiched, and begins crying, "What shall I do?" There is another wave around, a wave that seems to be very happy, and so the first wave asks him, "How come you are so happy? You also are small—in fact, you are smaller than me! How come you are so happy?" Then another wave says, "He's an enlightened wave." Now the first wave wants to know, "What is enlightenment? What is this enlightenment?" The happy wave says, "Hey, come on! You should know who you are!" "All right. Who am I?" And the enlightened wave says, "You are the ocean." "What?! Ocean? Did you say that I am the ocean, because of all the water by which I am sustained and to which I will go back? That ocean I am?" "Yes, you are the ocean." And he laughs. "How can I be the ocean? That's like saying I am God. The ocean is almighty, it's all-pervasive, it's everything. How can I be the ocean?"
So we can dismiss Vedanta's statement of the non dual reality, or we can ask, "How come? How come I am That?" The nondual teaching is not necessary if our identity is obvious, if what is apparent to us is not a difference but an essential nondifference. Here, there is nondifference. There is no wave without water, and there is no ocean without water. Every other wave, and the whole ocean too, is one water alone.
Nondual realization and action in the world
AC: One of the subjects I'm very interested in is the relationship between the nondual realization that you've been describing and action in the world of time and space. For example, in the empirical world, in empirical reality, even the realized soul who has no doubt about his true nature finds that he still must take a stand—against, in opposition to—the forces of delusion and negativity operating there.
SD: We need not impose a rule like should and must—he may take a stand.
AC: May take a stand?
SD: Yes. Because once he's free, who is to set rules for him? You see, if he is free enough to do, then he is just as free not to do—that is what I say. He will spontaneously do what he has to do. Perhaps he thinks that everybody is all right. In fact, that's what the truth is. Because until you tell me that you have a problem with me, I don't have a problem with you.
AC: But let's say, for example, that the realized soul is sitting in a room and then a killer comes in and starts killing people. Some people might say, "Well, it's all one Self and there's no opposition, so there's no need to interfere." But someone else would say, "I have no choice; I have to interfere."
SD: Why should he not interfere? Clearly, at that level, there is hurting—
AC: Yes.
SD: And maybe he is not even killing, maybe he is only using abusive language. Why should this realized soul not say, "Foolish man, change your language. What are you doing?" So he can help him; he can help him to change. And he can do it without creating any big problem for him; he can be angry without causing anger to this fellow, he can talk to that person and make him see that he is abusive because of his background and help him to change. So that's what he will do. But we cannot say that he should correct. For that, who is to set the rule for me? Suppose one is enlightened; who is to set the rule for that person, for the enlightened person? Nobody has to set the rule, because he is above all the rules.
AC: He's above the rules?
SD: Yes, he's above the rules and not subject to any rule. Nobody can objectify the Self; there is no second person to objectify the Self. And therefore the Self is not subject to hurt nor guilt, and therefore is free from hurt and guilt. In other words, it is neither a subject nor an object, and if that is so, then "should" does not come into the picture—not even into the picture of empirical transaction—because it's just not an issue. The issue is: Here is a person who has a certain problem and therefore he is abusive, and that person can be helped. So of course he will help!
AC: Everything that you're saying obviously is completely true because, ultimately, the nondual cannot be affected and has no preferences. But what I am saying is that there is always a profound effect on the human personality of the one who has realized that nondual, and I'm using this extreme example only to make the point that some criterion has to be there. For example, historically, individuals who have deeply realized this nondual Absolute have expressed sattvic nature, have expressed egolessness. So even though I know that enlightenment takes many forms, and the expression of enlightenment is different in different people, still, fundamentally, there is always an expression of selflessness and compassion which allows us to say that if someone was truly a realized person they would not be able to act in a profoundly self-centered manner. Therefore, there are certainly things a person wouldn't do if he or she was an enlightened person. That's my point.
SD: So how will you judge an enlightened person?
AC: Well, if he was raping and killing people, then we could at least say, "This is not an enlightened person." Correct?
SD: But that doesn't come into the picture anyway because in the traditional system he has to have gone through a life of rigorous moral and spiritual training, and only then is he enlightened, and this fellow has not done that, so clearly he still has some problems. There is a statement, though: "It takes a wise man to know a wise man." If you are a wise man, then you don't need another wise man to become wise; if you are otherwise, you need a wise man, but because you are otherwise, you cannot discern him. So you are in a helpless situation. Therefore, the criterion for a wise man, I tell you finally—the way to find out whether he is wise or not—is if he makes you wise. Then he knows. That is the only criterion, and there is none other because the forms his compassion can assume are very varied, and with all our actions we don't always console people.
The Mystic and the Vedantin
AC: Shankara and Ramana Maharshi are generally considered to be two of the greatest exponents of Advaita teaching and advaita realization. And yet I've always wondered why Shankara's teaching gave rise to a monastic system in which one is encouraged to renounce the world in order to pursue the spiritual life in earnest, while often when people would ask Ramana Maharshi—who was a renunciate himself—"Master, should I give up the world?" he would encourage them to inquire into the nature of who it was that wanted to give up the world, and discourage them from trying to make any external changes in their lives.
SD: Shankara is just a link in the tradition, as I said before. He's not the author of any particular system or monastic order. It's true that he himself was a sannyasi, a renunciate—as a young person he renounced everything—but a sannyasi is different from a monastic.
A sannyasi doesn't belong to any monastic order. He is simply a noncompetitor in the society. He is a person who has gained a certain maturity, a certain discriminative understanding, which drives him to pursue spiritual knowledge in a dedicated fashion. In Shankara's time, such a person was absolved from all familial, social and religious duties by a ritual in which he said, "All is given up by me. I don't compete. I'm not interested in money or power or security or in anything else here." That is a sannyasi. He is not a member of an organization or order. There is no monastery to protect that fellow. He's "under the sky."
But there is still a deeper level of renunciation which this sannyasi, this renunciate, has to gain, and that is the knowledge that "I am not the doer, I am not the enjoyer, I never did any karma, any action, before"—direct knowledge of the nondual Self, which is also actionlessness. Action is always there as long as doership is there. Even "not-doing" is an action. So the freedom from doership that comes in the wake of knowledge of the Self is not an act of giving up. It is: "I know and therefore I am free. And so there is no choice." This is what is called the real sannyas, the true renunciation of all actions at all times, and that is enlightenment.
AC: It's not true that Shankara started a monastic tradition?
SD: No, he didn't start any monastic tradition. They said so afterwards, but that was because he was such a popular teacher and because he was a sannyasi. His disciples had maths [monasteries] that they had created, but it wasn't a new order. Some of his disciples were perhaps dispatched to different places, but we don't know whether he sent them or they went. My feeling is they went—he didn't send anybody anywhere. That's how I would be, anyway, if I were Shankara; I'd say, "Go wherever you want!" Now if a small person like me would do that, then I don't think Shankara would have done anything else. So that's one perception taken care of.
Then there's Ramana. Some people say that Ramana is the highest, the one who in the modern world has accomplished advaita. That's the perception because he's known to some people, but there could be unknown millions we don't know—some may even be householders, people who are at home, some of them just your ordinary housewives. In India, you know, you can't take these people for granted; some of these women are enlightened. They are! And they may be housewives, mothers of ten children. We don't know. India is a different country. There are no criteria to find out whether this person is enlightened or not. And so Ramana is said to be enlightened, but we should ask him, "Are you enlightened?" And he will say, "Why do you want to know? Who are you who wants to know? Find out who you are." He discovered this way of speaking with people that did not require him to answer any questions. One fellow comes and asks, "What is God?" and he answers, "Who are you that is asking this question?" This is a way of answering questions that he adopted as an attempt to turn the person toward himself. Therefore, his attention was not toward any particular style of living. He neither encouraged sannyas nor anything else. He was only telling people: "Understand who you are. That's what is important."
AC: In fact, if people would say that they wanted to leave their family and take sannyas, he would discourage that.
SD: Every sannyasi will say the same thing, because otherwise all those people would end up in the ashram! Certainly I would say the same thing in this case, because anybody who says, "I want to give up everything," has got a problem.
AC: Why?
SD: Because he's doubtful! If he were not doubtful he would have left already; he wouldn't have come and asked me. Because the mango fruit, when it is ripe, falls down; it doesn't ask, "Shall I fall down?" Ramana was not dumb; he knew exactly what he had to say. If I were he, do you know what I would have said? I would advise the person, "Hey, come on, you need not change anything. Be where you are; it's a change of vision." Even Shankara would say the same thing. Shankara had only four disciples. He traveled up and down this country on foot, which means he met thousands of people, yet he had only four disciples! That means he was advising everybody, "Stay where you are."
AC: Yet at the same time, from what we have heard, both Jesus and the Buddha encouraged people to leave everything and follow them in order to pursue the spiritual life. So this is an intriguing question.
SD: They encouraged, they encouraged—I don't know what for. Perhaps they wanted people to spend time with themselves. But the value of a contemplative life has always been there in the Vedic tradition, and a contemplative life can be lived anywhere. And you can be in the midst of all activities in the contemplative life, or you can be alone and not contemplative at all.
AC: In one of your books, you make a distinction between a mystic and a Vedantin. When referring, for example, to Ramana Maharshi as a mystic, you seem to be distinguishing him in some way from a Vedantin, and since many people consider him to be the quintessence of Vedanta, I'm curious to know what that distinction is.
SD: The only difference here is that a mystic has no means of communication to make you a mystic, an equally great mystic as himself.
AC: To clear up empirical confusion—is that what you mean?
SD: Yes. Suppose this mystic has got the knowledge of his being always All—that kind of a mystic's experience. So that person is a mystic, but he has no means of communication to share that experience. If he has a means of communication by which to make another person equally a mystic, then there is nothing mystical about what he knows. Therefore, I will not call him a "mystic"; I will call him a "Vedantin."
AC: In Ramana's case, everybody said that he communicated through silence.
SD: Again, this is an interpretation, because there are a lot of people I know who went to him and then came back saying that he didn't know anything.
AC: But there are also many people who said that they had profound experiences in his presence.
SD: Each one has to interpret in his own way. But we can only say someone is a Vedantin as long as they teach Vedanta!
posted by just sam at 7:29 PM
1 comments
Differences between prophetic religions and hinduism
Fundamental diff. between Hinduism and Prophetic
I am pasting from the book Defence of Hindu Society by Sri Sita Ram Goel, where he talks abt the fundamental difference between Hinduism and Prophetic religions like Islam and Christianity. It makes a great reading
QUOTE:
The fundamental difference between the Sanãtana Dharma family of faiths on the one hand, and the “only true” creeds like Christianity and Islam on the other, can be drawn out in the form of a dialogue between a Soviet citizen and a citizen from a free society. The story may not be literally true. But it is illustrative of what can happen to human mind when it is deprived of freedom, and is regimented by blind beliefs imposed from outside.
A FREE SOCIETY VERSUS A CLOSED FRATERNITY
A Soviet diplomat(in communist times) arrived in the capital of a democratic country on a commercial mission on behalf of his government. The mission was to continue for several months, and the hotel in which the diplomat had to stay immediately on his arrival was rather expensive by Soviet standards. Next day, the diplomat approached the enquiry counter of the hotel and asked the lady in attendance, “Where can I find your Housing Committee?”
The lady could not understand his question and asked him to elaborate. The diplomat explained, “You see, I cannot stay for long in this expensive place. I want to apply to the appropriate authority for allotment of adequate but cheaper accommodation.”
The lady picked up the telephone directory, opened it at a particular page, and told the diplomat, “Sorry, we have no such committee in this city or anywhere else in this country. You have to go to an estate agent who will show you all kinds of accommodation and negotiate for the one you approve of finally. The leading estate agents are listed on this page. You may phone to any one of them for an appointment.”
The diplomat was visibly annoyed. He shoved aside the telephone directory and shot his next question, “And where can I find your Food Committee?”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:42 AM
The lady informed him that there was no such committee either. The diplomat was now furious. He shouted, “How and where, then, do I buy the food which I will need everyday? I must have the necessary permit.”
The lady assured him patiently that he needed no permit, and that he could go into any of the hundreds of stores to buy whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted.
By now the diplomat was in tantrums. He taunted, “I suppose you have no Transport Committee either?”
The lady kept her cool and said with a smile, “Why, there are all those taxies standing and cruising all over this city. You can hire any one of them at any time of the day or night and go wherever you please.”1
The diplomat gave up in utter disgust. There was sadness writ large on his face. He shook his head several times and said to himself, “Very bad! Very bad indeed! There is no system in this country. It is a chaos all around. I feel lost.”
SPIRITUAL FREFDOM VERSUS RELIGIOUS REGIMENTATION
A follower of closed creeds like Christianity and Islam finds himself in a similar situation when faced with the spiritual freedom that is Sanãtana Dharma. He discovers very soon that Sanãtana Dharma does not fit into any of the mental moulds to which he is wedded, and which he seeks in other systems of thought. He is most likely to shake his head in utter disgust and feel lost like our diplomat from a closed social system stationed in the metropolis of a free society. An encounter between a monotheist and an informed follower of Sanãtana Dharma is, therefore, sure to develop along similar lines.
The first point in which the followers of closed creeds take great pride is the historicity of the only saviour or the last prophet who was sent by or who received the “full and final revelation” from the “one and only true god.”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:43 AM
The first question which such a faithful will put to a student of Sanãtana Dharma, therefore, is bound to be as follows: “Who is your only saviour or your last prophet? Where was he born and brought up? Where and when and before which apostles or companions did he teach, preach, and reveal?”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma cannot but reply as follows: “The very concept of a historical saviour or prophet is foreign to Sanãtana Dharma. We do not concede the monopoly of spiritual truth or moral virtue to any historical person, howsoever great or highly honoured. Every one has to be one’s own saviour, one’s own prophet. One has to discover the spiritual truths for one’s own self, if that truth has to have any meaning for one or any validity in one’s life. A truth discovered by someone else cannot become my truth unless I rediscover it for myself. Scriptures and spiritual teachers can be my aids and guides, and may help me in my search for truth. But the truth of which the scriptures speak or which the teachers expound cannot become a truth for me unless it comes alive in my own consciousness, and starts transforming my own life. Moreover, the very historicity in which you take pride is for us the hallmark of the ephemeral and the false. We reject a historical religion as pauruSeya prasthãna, idiosyncrasies of a particular person, no matter how you hail him. That which was born in history has also died in history. You are showing devotion to what is dead and gone.”
Next, the followers of closed creeds are mighty proud of being as Ahl-i-Kitãb or the People of the Book. They are sure that the “only true revelation” from the “one and only true god” is contained in the book (al-kitãb) which was compiled by the apostles of the only saviour or the companions of the last prophet, after the saviour or the prophet had passed away and could speak no more. They believe that nothing can be taken out from or added to this “book” which is supposed to contain the final truth for all time to come.
Surya 2/16/2005 5:43 AM
Therefore, the second question which such a faithful will put to a follower of Sanãtana Dharma is as follows: “Which is the book in which you believe, or your al-kitãb?”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma is sure to reply as follows: “What for do we need a book? The whole spiritual truth, every shastra, is secret in the human heart. Any one, anywhere, at any time can have access to the spiritual realm provided one seeks for it sincerely, and prepares oneself for entering it. Many seers and saints have seen it in as many ways, spoken of it and in as many languages and by means of as many metaphors. The Vedas provide one version of it, the Jainãgama another, the TripiTaka yet another, and so on down to the latest Hindu saint such as Sri Ramakrishna, or the latest Hindu sage such as Raman Maharshi. Different sects of Sanãtana Dharma have collected the sayings and songs of different sages and saints in as many books which these sects cherish as their shastras. But these shastras are not at all what you describe as the book or al-kitãb, even by distant definition. Your creed will get lost for good if your the book or al-kitãb gets lost. The book or al-kitãb cannot be recovered because the person who preached it or to whom it was revealed is dead and gone. But Sanãtana Dharma will lose nothing if all its shastras are lost. All old shastras and many more can be recovered from inside the human heart, where all of them are ultimately enshrined.”
By now the follower of a closed creed is most likely to feel flabbergasted by what he has been brainwashed to regard as blasphemy. The third question which such a faithful will put to a student of Sanãtana Dharma is as follows: “You have no only saviour, no last prophet. You have no al-kitãb. How, then, do you know who is your one and only true god? How do you distinguish this one and only true god from the many false gods which abound all around you?”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:44 AM
At this stage the student of Sanãtana Dharma will have to smile and say, “According to our spiritual tradition, testified by a long line of spiritual seekers, the way to God-discovery is through Self-discovery. As one proceeds on that inner voyage one sees spiritual truths in many forms. None of these forms is false. It is only one’s seeking which can falter and lead to one’s fall from the path of spiritual progress by insisting that this or that form alone is true. Sanãtana Dharma stands squarely for a human becoming God in the process of Self-discovery-Ãtman becoming Parmãtman, PuruSa becoming PuruSottama. This is the path of world-discovery as well. The deeper one dives into oneself, the faster one’s world gets divinised. One starts seeing God in every human being, in every animal, in every plant, in every stone. One feels free to worship God in any from or in all forms at the same time. One also feel’s free not to worship God at all, and to dwell within oneself in spiritual self-delight. Sanãtana Dharma, therefore, has no use for a God who makes himself known to mankind through the medium of a saviour or a prophet, or through the pages of al-kitãb or the book. Such a God must always remain external to us, and external to the world in which we live. Such a God does not permit humanhood to grow into Godhood, nor allows this world to get divinised. He has reserved all divinity for himself, and has nothing to spare for his creatures except an abject servitude to his arbitrary commandments conveyed through a saviour or a prophet chosen equally arbitrarily.”
The follower of a closed creed now shoots the last arrow in his armoury with what he believes to be deadly effect. He is sure to shout, “You have failed to win the favour of the only saviour or the last prophet by not living a life according to the final commandments of the one and only true God as revealed to his only son or his last prophet in al-kitab or the book.
Surya 2/16/2005 5:45 AM
How will the only saviour or the last prophet intercede for you on the Day of Judgement, and save you from God’s wrath and eternal hell-fire? You cannot say in all seriousness that you are not interested in going to an eternal heaven full of fair maidens, flowing with milk and honey, and fanned by ever-fragrant breezes.”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma will keep his cool and reply as follows: “Sanãtana Dharma is not so mean and miserly in deciding human destiny. It gives many lives to every creature. One can start anew from the point where one stopped in one’s previous life. And the process does not cease till a creature has attained perfection and achieved Godhood. Every one is a bodhisattva destined to become the Buddha in the course of spiritual seeking. The journey is from darkness and bondage to light and freedom, and not from the sensual pleasures of this world to the sensual orgies of a high heaven. On the other hand, the only hell we know is neither situated outside ourselves, nor at the end of time. The hell is within us - in our greed and gluttony, in our hatreds and infatuations, in our self-righteousness and self-seeking, in our dark drives for power and domination, in our self-love and pursuit of pleasure. The only way out of this hell is through an awakening to the divinity within us, and through dispelling the darkness of ignorance in which we live our mundane lives. The favour or disfavour of a saviour or a prophet can neither catapult us into heaven nor drag us down into hell. A saviour or prophet is absolutely irrelevant to the realm of spiritual progress or retrogression.”
At this point the follower of a closed creed is bound to give up in utter disgust. He is bound to exclaim, “Very bad! Very bad indeed! There is no system in your bewildered beliefs. It is a free for all. What is worse, it is blasphemy against the one and only true God, against the only saviour or the last prophet sent by Him, and against the only true revelation conveyed by Him through a mighty messenger.”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:52 AM
UNQUOTE
Altough in a rude manner, Sita Ram goel beautifully depicts the diffence in the outlook of that of a Hindu and that of a person of prophetic faith about various issues.
This also wonderfully explains the individual freedom, and hence variety and many number of different ways, which a new comer to Hinduism fails to understand.
Bhargava 2/16/2005 10:06 AM
Good post surya!
A verse from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran:
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul."
Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.
Taigh-e-neem zor @surya... 2/16/2005 10:40 AM
that post was veriy informative. i learnt a lot abt hinduism from there....n the best part that i came across was the amount of similarity b/w hinduism n islam.
but whoever wrote it lacked a bit in his knowledge abt islam. actually the thing is that there r alwez two types of followers of a relligion...i.e. the normal ppl & the ppl who really kno their religion...the normal ppl alwez follow some restiricted rules. then there is the ppl who really kno wat heir religion is all about. this happens with every relligion.
the muslims of india or i shud say the sub continent r v v close in their perspective of relligion...this i suppose emerged due to their insecurity towards a majority relligion...but they have created a certain boundaries for themselves.
Surya Obed 2/16/2005 11:17 AM
I agree that the author is wrong at certain places when he talks abt the prophetic faiths.
But he did not deal exactly with any, and was dealing with the genreal mentality of prophetic faiths, as compared to the Hinduism.
Also, he does not claim to analyse the other religions at their best, but as they are perceved by the majority of its own followers.
Also one more difference which can be seen is, in Propehtic religions, what differentiates a religious man from a non-religious man is he is worshipping true god or false god. But in Hinduism, what differentiates a religious and non-religious person is not which god he is worshipping, but whether the worship is true worship or false. You can worship any god or godess you like, and get the same result, only the sincerity and inner purity matter.
Well there will be ppl who do not understand their religion everywhere. true, but thats not the whole story. What is are the fundamentals of that religion also matter. In the case of Hinduism, Shraddha(loosely sincerity), Anubhuti(experience) are two major ideas. A Hindu is not forced to(rather advised not to) believe in anything until he himself has directly perceived/experienced it. abt Islam, you are better person to tell than me.
I believe that the muslims in India are much better than their counter parts in Arab. I hope the moment the muslims in these parts stop looking towards arab for everything, they will be on much better terms.
The main factoe fuelling the Hindu-Muslim conflict is the muslim seperatism- that many muslims do not treat India as their motherland, and rather see to arab as their home. SO this makes India, not a land of their own to add something to, but a land to exploit.
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=23217&tid=7800332
I am pasting from the book Defence of Hindu Society by Sri Sita Ram Goel, where he talks abt the fundamental difference between Hinduism and Prophetic religions like Islam and Christianity. It makes a great reading
QUOTE:
The fundamental difference between the Sanãtana Dharma family of faiths on the one hand, and the “only true” creeds like Christianity and Islam on the other, can be drawn out in the form of a dialogue between a Soviet citizen and a citizen from a free society. The story may not be literally true. But it is illustrative of what can happen to human mind when it is deprived of freedom, and is regimented by blind beliefs imposed from outside.
A FREE SOCIETY VERSUS A CLOSED FRATERNITY
A Soviet diplomat(in communist times) arrived in the capital of a democratic country on a commercial mission on behalf of his government. The mission was to continue for several months, and the hotel in which the diplomat had to stay immediately on his arrival was rather expensive by Soviet standards. Next day, the diplomat approached the enquiry counter of the hotel and asked the lady in attendance, “Where can I find your Housing Committee?”
The lady could not understand his question and asked him to elaborate. The diplomat explained, “You see, I cannot stay for long in this expensive place. I want to apply to the appropriate authority for allotment of adequate but cheaper accommodation.”
The lady picked up the telephone directory, opened it at a particular page, and told the diplomat, “Sorry, we have no such committee in this city or anywhere else in this country. You have to go to an estate agent who will show you all kinds of accommodation and negotiate for the one you approve of finally. The leading estate agents are listed on this page. You may phone to any one of them for an appointment.”
The diplomat was visibly annoyed. He shoved aside the telephone directory and shot his next question, “And where can I find your Food Committee?”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:42 AM
The lady informed him that there was no such committee either. The diplomat was now furious. He shouted, “How and where, then, do I buy the food which I will need everyday? I must have the necessary permit.”
The lady assured him patiently that he needed no permit, and that he could go into any of the hundreds of stores to buy whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted.
By now the diplomat was in tantrums. He taunted, “I suppose you have no Transport Committee either?”
The lady kept her cool and said with a smile, “Why, there are all those taxies standing and cruising all over this city. You can hire any one of them at any time of the day or night and go wherever you please.”1
The diplomat gave up in utter disgust. There was sadness writ large on his face. He shook his head several times and said to himself, “Very bad! Very bad indeed! There is no system in this country. It is a chaos all around. I feel lost.”
SPIRITUAL FREFDOM VERSUS RELIGIOUS REGIMENTATION
A follower of closed creeds like Christianity and Islam finds himself in a similar situation when faced with the spiritual freedom that is Sanãtana Dharma. He discovers very soon that Sanãtana Dharma does not fit into any of the mental moulds to which he is wedded, and which he seeks in other systems of thought. He is most likely to shake his head in utter disgust and feel lost like our diplomat from a closed social system stationed in the metropolis of a free society. An encounter between a monotheist and an informed follower of Sanãtana Dharma is, therefore, sure to develop along similar lines.
The first point in which the followers of closed creeds take great pride is the historicity of the only saviour or the last prophet who was sent by or who received the “full and final revelation” from the “one and only true god.”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:43 AM
The first question which such a faithful will put to a student of Sanãtana Dharma, therefore, is bound to be as follows: “Who is your only saviour or your last prophet? Where was he born and brought up? Where and when and before which apostles or companions did he teach, preach, and reveal?”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma cannot but reply as follows: “The very concept of a historical saviour or prophet is foreign to Sanãtana Dharma. We do not concede the monopoly of spiritual truth or moral virtue to any historical person, howsoever great or highly honoured. Every one has to be one’s own saviour, one’s own prophet. One has to discover the spiritual truths for one’s own self, if that truth has to have any meaning for one or any validity in one’s life. A truth discovered by someone else cannot become my truth unless I rediscover it for myself. Scriptures and spiritual teachers can be my aids and guides, and may help me in my search for truth. But the truth of which the scriptures speak or which the teachers expound cannot become a truth for me unless it comes alive in my own consciousness, and starts transforming my own life. Moreover, the very historicity in which you take pride is for us the hallmark of the ephemeral and the false. We reject a historical religion as pauruSeya prasthãna, idiosyncrasies of a particular person, no matter how you hail him. That which was born in history has also died in history. You are showing devotion to what is dead and gone.”
Next, the followers of closed creeds are mighty proud of being as Ahl-i-Kitãb or the People of the Book. They are sure that the “only true revelation” from the “one and only true god” is contained in the book (al-kitãb) which was compiled by the apostles of the only saviour or the companions of the last prophet, after the saviour or the prophet had passed away and could speak no more. They believe that nothing can be taken out from or added to this “book” which is supposed to contain the final truth for all time to come.
Surya 2/16/2005 5:43 AM
Therefore, the second question which such a faithful will put to a follower of Sanãtana Dharma is as follows: “Which is the book in which you believe, or your al-kitãb?”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma is sure to reply as follows: “What for do we need a book? The whole spiritual truth, every shastra, is secret in the human heart. Any one, anywhere, at any time can have access to the spiritual realm provided one seeks for it sincerely, and prepares oneself for entering it. Many seers and saints have seen it in as many ways, spoken of it and in as many languages and by means of as many metaphors. The Vedas provide one version of it, the Jainãgama another, the TripiTaka yet another, and so on down to the latest Hindu saint such as Sri Ramakrishna, or the latest Hindu sage such as Raman Maharshi. Different sects of Sanãtana Dharma have collected the sayings and songs of different sages and saints in as many books which these sects cherish as their shastras. But these shastras are not at all what you describe as the book or al-kitãb, even by distant definition. Your creed will get lost for good if your the book or al-kitãb gets lost. The book or al-kitãb cannot be recovered because the person who preached it or to whom it was revealed is dead and gone. But Sanãtana Dharma will lose nothing if all its shastras are lost. All old shastras and many more can be recovered from inside the human heart, where all of them are ultimately enshrined.”
By now the follower of a closed creed is most likely to feel flabbergasted by what he has been brainwashed to regard as blasphemy. The third question which such a faithful will put to a student of Sanãtana Dharma is as follows: “You have no only saviour, no last prophet. You have no al-kitãb. How, then, do you know who is your one and only true god? How do you distinguish this one and only true god from the many false gods which abound all around you?”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:44 AM
At this stage the student of Sanãtana Dharma will have to smile and say, “According to our spiritual tradition, testified by a long line of spiritual seekers, the way to God-discovery is through Self-discovery. As one proceeds on that inner voyage one sees spiritual truths in many forms. None of these forms is false. It is only one’s seeking which can falter and lead to one’s fall from the path of spiritual progress by insisting that this or that form alone is true. Sanãtana Dharma stands squarely for a human becoming God in the process of Self-discovery-Ãtman becoming Parmãtman, PuruSa becoming PuruSottama. This is the path of world-discovery as well. The deeper one dives into oneself, the faster one’s world gets divinised. One starts seeing God in every human being, in every animal, in every plant, in every stone. One feels free to worship God in any from or in all forms at the same time. One also feel’s free not to worship God at all, and to dwell within oneself in spiritual self-delight. Sanãtana Dharma, therefore, has no use for a God who makes himself known to mankind through the medium of a saviour or a prophet, or through the pages of al-kitãb or the book. Such a God must always remain external to us, and external to the world in which we live. Such a God does not permit humanhood to grow into Godhood, nor allows this world to get divinised. He has reserved all divinity for himself, and has nothing to spare for his creatures except an abject servitude to his arbitrary commandments conveyed through a saviour or a prophet chosen equally arbitrarily.”
The follower of a closed creed now shoots the last arrow in his armoury with what he believes to be deadly effect. He is sure to shout, “You have failed to win the favour of the only saviour or the last prophet by not living a life according to the final commandments of the one and only true God as revealed to his only son or his last prophet in al-kitab or the book.
Surya 2/16/2005 5:45 AM
How will the only saviour or the last prophet intercede for you on the Day of Judgement, and save you from God’s wrath and eternal hell-fire? You cannot say in all seriousness that you are not interested in going to an eternal heaven full of fair maidens, flowing with milk and honey, and fanned by ever-fragrant breezes.”
A student of Sanãtana Dharma will keep his cool and reply as follows: “Sanãtana Dharma is not so mean and miserly in deciding human destiny. It gives many lives to every creature. One can start anew from the point where one stopped in one’s previous life. And the process does not cease till a creature has attained perfection and achieved Godhood. Every one is a bodhisattva destined to become the Buddha in the course of spiritual seeking. The journey is from darkness and bondage to light and freedom, and not from the sensual pleasures of this world to the sensual orgies of a high heaven. On the other hand, the only hell we know is neither situated outside ourselves, nor at the end of time. The hell is within us - in our greed and gluttony, in our hatreds and infatuations, in our self-righteousness and self-seeking, in our dark drives for power and domination, in our self-love and pursuit of pleasure. The only way out of this hell is through an awakening to the divinity within us, and through dispelling the darkness of ignorance in which we live our mundane lives. The favour or disfavour of a saviour or a prophet can neither catapult us into heaven nor drag us down into hell. A saviour or prophet is absolutely irrelevant to the realm of spiritual progress or retrogression.”
At this point the follower of a closed creed is bound to give up in utter disgust. He is bound to exclaim, “Very bad! Very bad indeed! There is no system in your bewildered beliefs. It is a free for all. What is worse, it is blasphemy against the one and only true God, against the only saviour or the last prophet sent by Him, and against the only true revelation conveyed by Him through a mighty messenger.”
Surya 2/16/2005 5:52 AM
UNQUOTE
Altough in a rude manner, Sita Ram goel beautifully depicts the diffence in the outlook of that of a Hindu and that of a person of prophetic faith about various issues.
This also wonderfully explains the individual freedom, and hence variety and many number of different ways, which a new comer to Hinduism fails to understand.
Bhargava 2/16/2005 10:06 AM
Good post surya!
A verse from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran:
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul."
Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.
Taigh-e-neem zor @surya... 2/16/2005 10:40 AM
that post was veriy informative. i learnt a lot abt hinduism from there....n the best part that i came across was the amount of similarity b/w hinduism n islam.
but whoever wrote it lacked a bit in his knowledge abt islam. actually the thing is that there r alwez two types of followers of a relligion...i.e. the normal ppl & the ppl who really kno their religion...the normal ppl alwez follow some restiricted rules. then there is the ppl who really kno wat heir religion is all about. this happens with every relligion.
the muslims of india or i shud say the sub continent r v v close in their perspective of relligion...this i suppose emerged due to their insecurity towards a majority relligion...but they have created a certain boundaries for themselves.
Surya Obed 2/16/2005 11:17 AM
I agree that the author is wrong at certain places when he talks abt the prophetic faiths.
But he did not deal exactly with any, and was dealing with the genreal mentality of prophetic faiths, as compared to the Hinduism.
Also, he does not claim to analyse the other religions at their best, but as they are perceved by the majority of its own followers.
Also one more difference which can be seen is, in Propehtic religions, what differentiates a religious man from a non-religious man is he is worshipping true god or false god. But in Hinduism, what differentiates a religious and non-religious person is not which god he is worshipping, but whether the worship is true worship or false. You can worship any god or godess you like, and get the same result, only the sincerity and inner purity matter.
Well there will be ppl who do not understand their religion everywhere. true, but thats not the whole story. What is are the fundamentals of that religion also matter. In the case of Hinduism, Shraddha(loosely sincerity), Anubhuti(experience) are two major ideas. A Hindu is not forced to(rather advised not to) believe in anything until he himself has directly perceived/experienced it. abt Islam, you are better person to tell than me.
I believe that the muslims in India are much better than their counter parts in Arab. I hope the moment the muslims in these parts stop looking towards arab for everything, they will be on much better terms.
The main factoe fuelling the Hindu-Muslim conflict is the muslim seperatism- that many muslims do not treat India as their motherland, and rather see to arab as their home. SO this makes India, not a land of their own to add something to, but a land to exploit.
http://www.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?cmm=23217&tid=7800332
posted by just sam at 1:22 PM
35 comments
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Hindu Sites sited at Orkut
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Invasion_Theory
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.htm
www.hinduismtoday.com
Pro AIT mailing list ?
if you want to hear cutting-edge discussion of this stuff from people who are experts, there is a new mailing list called Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com
www.americanhindu.net
http://www.hinduholocaust.com/
http://www.voi.org/books/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Invasion_Theory
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/general/sanskrit.htm
www.hinduismtoday.com
Pro AIT mailing list ?
if you want to hear cutting-edge discussion of this stuff from people who are experts, there is a new mailing list called Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com
www.americanhindu.net
http://www.hinduholocaust.com/
http://www.voi.org/books/
posted by just sam at 3:30 AM
3 comments
One more Anti AIT argument
Sanskrit exists in its original form, as in the Vedas, only in this part of the world (India). And since everything written in this language only validates events in this region, and is limited to the geography of this region, it would seem illogical to assume that the language itself was an import.
The seven holy rivers are all from the Indian sub-continent. The twelve Jyotirlings are all in what is still India. The pilgrimage centers of our culture are within this region. The mountains and valleys, ocean and deserts are still here. The excavations at Harappa indicate that writing existed in this civilization in 4000 BC. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has any reference to any place or people outside of this region. Not in any of the Vedas, Puranas or the Epics.
The seven holy rivers are all from the Indian sub-continent. The twelve Jyotirlings are all in what is still India. The pilgrimage centers of our culture are within this region. The mountains and valleys, ocean and deserts are still here. The excavations at Harappa indicate that writing existed in this civilization in 4000 BC. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has any reference to any place or people outside of this region. Not in any of the Vedas, Puranas or the Epics.
posted by just sam at 3:15 AM
1 comments
AIT Theory Visited
An interesting post I found on AIT :
Large amount of literary evidence(Vedas and huge body of work in sanskrit) of the "Aryan Civilisation" exists but no literary evidence of the "Harappan Civilisation" exists.
Conversely, large amount of archaelogical evidence(Harappa, Mohenjodaro) of the "Harappan Civilisation" exists, but no archaelogical evidence of the "Aryan Civilisation" in the same scale exists.
If these are different civilisations shouldn't both literary and archaelogical evidence exist for both of them?
Putting these together, is'nt it plausible that both "Harappan" and "Aryan" civilisations are one and the same ??
I also have another crib about the AIT debate? Wherever the debate rages, it is made contingent on the anti-AIT guys to prove that the invasion did NOT occur. Rather, from 1st principles, should'nt the opposite be expected, ie, prove conclusively that invasion did occur. Taking the invasion as the "Null Hypothesis" and expecting people to disapprove it is quite inappropriate I believe.
Then anyone can claim anything, say, "Today's germans are not from germany, but migrated from the moon". Now prove it otherwise.
Large amount of literary evidence(Vedas and huge body of work in sanskrit) of the "Aryan Civilisation" exists but no literary evidence of the "Harappan Civilisation" exists.
Conversely, large amount of archaelogical evidence(Harappa, Mohenjodaro) of the "Harappan Civilisation" exists, but no archaelogical evidence of the "Aryan Civilisation" in the same scale exists.
If these are different civilisations shouldn't both literary and archaelogical evidence exist for both of them?
Putting these together, is'nt it plausible that both "Harappan" and "Aryan" civilisations are one and the same ??
I also have another crib about the AIT debate? Wherever the debate rages, it is made contingent on the anti-AIT guys to prove that the invasion did NOT occur. Rather, from 1st principles, should'nt the opposite be expected, ie, prove conclusively that invasion did occur. Taking the invasion as the "Null Hypothesis" and expecting people to disapprove it is quite inappropriate I believe.
Then anyone can claim anything, say, "Today's germans are not from germany, but migrated from the moon". Now prove it otherwise.
posted by just sam at 3:06 AM
3 comments
Alprose Swiss Choclates
http://www.alprose.ch/
Alprose and Kosher
Alprose
-Bars
-Dragees
-Napolitians
posted by just sam at 2:48 AM
3 comments
Mumbai Suburban Lines
Suburban Electric Trains: Local Railway Lines
Western Railway running between Churchgate and Virar.
Central Railway running between Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and Karjat.
Harbour Line running between Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and Mankhurd.
A new railway line running between Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and New Mumbai.
Western Railway running between Churchgate and Virar.
Central Railway running between Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and Karjat.
Harbour Line running between Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and Mankhurd.
A new railway line running between Shivaji Terminus (Bombay V.T.) and New Mumbai.
posted by just sam at 2:42 AM
2 comments
PG Wodehouse Online
Go to www.blackmask.com and search for PGW.
posted by just sam at 1:14 AM
3 comments
Castafiore Can't Say Haddock!
List first created: 17 July 2004.
The Calculus Affair
page 53, frame 9: this fisherman ... Mr? ... Mr...? (Haddock replies: Er ... Hoddack ... er ... Haddad ... Excuse me, Haddock.)
page 53, frame 11: Mr Paddock.
The Red Sea Sharks
page 40, frame 3: the deep-sea fisherman, Paddock.
page 40, frame 7: Padlock, Harrock.
The Castafiore Emerald
page 6, frame 4a: Captain Bartok. (frame 4b: Haddock responds: Haddock, by thunder, Signora Castoroili! ... Haddock!)
page 8, frame 10: Captain Fatstock!
page 9, frame 11: Captain Drydock.
page 10, frame 1: Captain Hopscotch.
page 10, frame 6: Captain Stopcock.
page 22, frame 6: Captain Paddock.
page 22, frame 11: Captain Hassock.
page 23, frame 11: Captain Havoc.
page 24, frame 12: Captain Maggot.
page 27, frame 5: (Paris Flash International: ... retired Admiral Hammock.)
page 28, frame 1: Captain Bootblack.
page 32, frame 8 (or frame 11, depending on how you count the frames): Captain Balzac.
page 34, frame 9: Captain Bedsock.
page 38, frame 7: (a continuous barrage of insults from Castafiore rivalling that of Haddock's classic outbursts: cads! the boors! the bumpkins! Mannerless yokels!)
page 38: (Castafiore calls Jolyon Wagg, Mr Swagg.)
page 43, frame 3: Castafiore calls Calculus "Professor Candyfloss."
page 43, frame 4: Castafiore calls Nestor "Chester".
page 55, frame 6: Captain Padlock.
page 56, frame 4: Captain Hatbox.
page 56, frame 7: Captain Stockpot.
Tintin and the Picaros
page 61, frame 6: Captain Hemlock
The Calculus Affair
page 53, frame 9: this fisherman ... Mr? ... Mr...? (Haddock replies: Er ... Hoddack ... er ... Haddad ... Excuse me, Haddock.)
page 53, frame 11: Mr Paddock.
The Red Sea Sharks
page 40, frame 3: the deep-sea fisherman, Paddock.
page 40, frame 7: Padlock, Harrock.
The Castafiore Emerald
page 6, frame 4a: Captain Bartok. (frame 4b: Haddock responds: Haddock, by thunder, Signora Castoroili! ... Haddock!)
page 8, frame 10: Captain Fatstock!
page 9, frame 11: Captain Drydock.
page 10, frame 1: Captain Hopscotch.
page 10, frame 6: Captain Stopcock.
page 22, frame 6: Captain Paddock.
page 22, frame 11: Captain Hassock.
page 23, frame 11: Captain Havoc.
page 24, frame 12: Captain Maggot.
page 27, frame 5: (Paris Flash International: ... retired Admiral Hammock.)
page 28, frame 1: Captain Bootblack.
page 32, frame 8 (or frame 11, depending on how you count the frames): Captain Balzac.
page 34, frame 9: Captain Bedsock.
page 38, frame 7: (a continuous barrage of insults from Castafiore rivalling that of Haddock's classic outbursts: cads! the boors! the bumpkins! Mannerless yokels!)
page 38: (Castafiore calls Jolyon Wagg, Mr Swagg.)
page 43, frame 3: Castafiore calls Calculus "Professor Candyfloss."
page 43, frame 4: Castafiore calls Nestor "Chester".
page 55, frame 6: Captain Padlock.
page 56, frame 4: Captain Hatbox.
page 56, frame 7: Captain Stockpot.
Tintin and the Picaros
page 61, frame 6: Captain Hemlock
posted by just sam at 12:38 AM
1 comments
List of Captains Curses
Captain Haddock's Curses
List created by Jesper Jühne (our former Webmaster).
Maintained by Irene Mar.
Contributions from Gustav Gullberg, Olivia Bloch, Matthew Vernon, Ishaan, and Som.
Last modified: 14 December 2004
Total count: 174
A
Aardvark! Abecedarians! Aborigine! Addle-pated lumps of anthracite! Anachronisms! Anacoluthons! Anthracite! Anthropithecus! Anthropophagus! Artichokes! Autocrats! Aztecs! [12]
B
Baboons! Baby-snatchers! Bagpipers! Bald-headed budgerigar! Bandits! Bashi-bazouks! Beast! Belemnite! Billions of billious barbecued blue blistering barnacles! Billions of Bilious Blue Blistering Barnacles! Billions of Blue Blistering Barnacles! Black beetles! Black Marketers! Blackamoor! Blackbird! Blackguards! Blistering Barnacles! Blistereing blundering birdbrain! Bloodsuckers! Blue blistering barnacles! Blue Blistering Bell-Bottomed Balderdash! Blunderbuss! Bodysnatcher! Bootlegger! Borgia! Bougainvillea! Brat! Breathalyser! Brigands! Brutes! Bucaneers! Bully! Butcher! [33]
C
Cachinnating cockatoo! Cannibals! Carpetsellers! Caterpillars! Centipede! Cercopithecus! Coelcanth! Colocynths! Corsair! Cowards! Crabapples! Crooks! Cushion footed quadrupeds! [13]
D
Diplodocus! Dogs! Doryphore! Doryphores! Duck-billed platypus! Dunderheaded coconuts! Dynamiter! [7]
E
Ectoplasms! Egoists! [2]
F
Fancy-dress Facist! Fancy-dress Fatima! Fatfaces! Filibusters! Fourlegged Cyrano! Freshwater swabs! Fuzzy wuzzy! [7]
G
Gallows-fodder! Gang of Theives! Gangsters! Gibbering anthropoids! Gobbledgook! Gogglers! Goosecaps! Guano-gatherer! Gyroscope! [9]
H
Harlequin! Heretic! Highwayman! Hydrocarbon! [4]
I
Iconoclasts! [1]
J
Jellied eel! Jellyfish! [2]
K
Kleptomaniacs! [1]
L
Lily-livered landlubbers! Loathsome brute! Lubberscum! [3]
M
Miserable blundering barbecued blister! Miserable earth worms! Miserable miser! Miserable molecule of mildew! Misguided missles! Mister Mule! Monopolizers! Monster! Morons! Moujiks! Mountebanks! Musical morons! [12]
N
Nitwits! Nitwitted ninepins! Nyctalops! [3]
O
Ophicleides! Orangoutang! Ostrogoth! [3]
P
Pachyrhizus! Parasites! Patagonians! Pestilential Pachyderm! Phylloxera! Pickled herrings! Pirates! Pithecanthropic montebanks! Pithecanthropuses! Pockmarks! Politican! Poltroons! Polygraphs! Polynesian! Profiteers! Psychopath! Purple profiteering jellyfish! Pyrographers! [18]
R
Raggle taggle ruminants! Rapscallion! Rats! Rhizopods! Roadhogs! [5]
S
Saucy tramp! Savages! Scorpion! Sea-gherkins! Sea-lice! Shipwreckers! Slavertrader! Slubberdegullions! Sparrows! Spitfire! Steamroller! Stoolpigeon! Subtropical sea-louse! Swine! [14]
T
Technocrat! Ten thousand thundering typhoons! Terrapins! Terrorists! Thundering typhoons! Tin hatted tyrants! Toads! Toffee-noses! Traitors! Tramps! Troglodytes! Turncoats! Twister! Two-timing Troglodytes! [14]
V
Vandal! Vegetarian! Vermicellis! Viper! Visigoths! Vulture! [6]
W
Weevils! Whippersnapper! Wildcat! Woodlice! [4]
Z
Zapotecs! [1]
List created by Jesper Jühne (our former Webmaster).
Maintained by Irene Mar.
Contributions from Gustav Gullberg, Olivia Bloch, Matthew Vernon, Ishaan, and Som.
Last modified: 14 December 2004
Total count: 174
A
Aardvark! Abecedarians! Aborigine! Addle-pated lumps of anthracite! Anachronisms! Anacoluthons! Anthracite! Anthropithecus! Anthropophagus! Artichokes! Autocrats! Aztecs! [12]
B
Baboons! Baby-snatchers! Bagpipers! Bald-headed budgerigar! Bandits! Bashi-bazouks! Beast! Belemnite! Billions of billious barbecued blue blistering barnacles! Billions of Bilious Blue Blistering Barnacles! Billions of Blue Blistering Barnacles! Black beetles! Black Marketers! Blackamoor! Blackbird! Blackguards! Blistering Barnacles! Blistereing blundering birdbrain! Bloodsuckers! Blue blistering barnacles! Blue Blistering Bell-Bottomed Balderdash! Blunderbuss! Bodysnatcher! Bootlegger! Borgia! Bougainvillea! Brat! Breathalyser! Brigands! Brutes! Bucaneers! Bully! Butcher! [33]
C
Cachinnating cockatoo! Cannibals! Carpetsellers! Caterpillars! Centipede! Cercopithecus! Coelcanth! Colocynths! Corsair! Cowards! Crabapples! Crooks! Cushion footed quadrupeds! [13]
D
Diplodocus! Dogs! Doryphore! Doryphores! Duck-billed platypus! Dunderheaded coconuts! Dynamiter! [7]
E
Ectoplasms! Egoists! [2]
F
Fancy-dress Facist! Fancy-dress Fatima! Fatfaces! Filibusters! Fourlegged Cyrano! Freshwater swabs! Fuzzy wuzzy! [7]
G
Gallows-fodder! Gang of Theives! Gangsters! Gibbering anthropoids! Gobbledgook! Gogglers! Goosecaps! Guano-gatherer! Gyroscope! [9]
H
Harlequin! Heretic! Highwayman! Hydrocarbon! [4]
I
Iconoclasts! [1]
J
Jellied eel! Jellyfish! [2]
K
Kleptomaniacs! [1]
L
Lily-livered landlubbers! Loathsome brute! Lubberscum! [3]
M
Miserable blundering barbecued blister! Miserable earth worms! Miserable miser! Miserable molecule of mildew! Misguided missles! Mister Mule! Monopolizers! Monster! Morons! Moujiks! Mountebanks! Musical morons! [12]
N
Nitwits! Nitwitted ninepins! Nyctalops! [3]
O
Ophicleides! Orangoutang! Ostrogoth! [3]
P
Pachyrhizus! Parasites! Patagonians! Pestilential Pachyderm! Phylloxera! Pickled herrings! Pirates! Pithecanthropic montebanks! Pithecanthropuses! Pockmarks! Politican! Poltroons! Polygraphs! Polynesian! Profiteers! Psychopath! Purple profiteering jellyfish! Pyrographers! [18]
R
Raggle taggle ruminants! Rapscallion! Rats! Rhizopods! Roadhogs! [5]
S
Saucy tramp! Savages! Scorpion! Sea-gherkins! Sea-lice! Shipwreckers! Slavertrader! Slubberdegullions! Sparrows! Spitfire! Steamroller! Stoolpigeon! Subtropical sea-louse! Swine! [14]
T
Technocrat! Ten thousand thundering typhoons! Terrapins! Terrorists! Thundering typhoons! Tin hatted tyrants! Toads! Toffee-noses! Traitors! Tramps! Troglodytes! Turncoats! Twister! Two-timing Troglodytes! [14]
V
Vandal! Vegetarian! Vermicellis! Viper! Visigoths! Vulture! [6]
W
Weevils! Whippersnapper! Wildcat! Woodlice! [4]
Z
Zapotecs! [1]
posted by just sam at 12:34 AM
4 comments
Calculus and other figures
Calculus, Cuthbert
Début: Red Rackham's Treasure - The Scientist who invented the Shark Submarine.
Trivia: Calculus's original name in French is Tryphon Tournesol (meaning: Sunflower). The character was inspired by the famous inventor of the bathyscaphe, Professor Auguste Piccard. In The Calculus Affair, the professor was imprisoned in the Fortress of Bakhine. Calculus never uses hearing aids because he believes he is only slightly hard of hearing, and hearing aids are for it is for the deaf (Destination Moon, page 8). In recognition of the contribution Calculus' anti-drinking tablets made, Alcazar appointed Calculus Knight Grand Cross of the Order of San Fernando with Oak Leaves. [Tintin and the Picaros]
Thomson
Début: The Cigars of the Pharaohs (as X33 and X33 bis).
Trivia:
Thomson sports a pointed moustache, his colleague Thompson sports a straight moustache [Land of Black Gold, p2, frames 6, 7, and p9, frame 6, and p33, frame 11; Back Island p2, frame 7; Crab p57, frame 10; Picaros p60, frame 2; Cgars p5, frame 13; Red Sea Sharks p7, frames 13, 14; The Castafiore Emerald, p 47, frame 2, p60 frame 11] / In French, Dupont has une moustache Tournante and Dupond une moustache droite.
The two detectives claim that they have been wearing moustaches since they were born! [Picaros p47, frame 7]
The British Pop group, Thompson Twins is named after the two detectives.
Some say the the two detectives are not brothers, other say they are. Snowy thinks they are brothers [Destination Moon, p18, last frame. Snowy says: This is it! ... Sensational appearance of the Thomson twins! / Entrée sensationnelle des Dupondt brothers! (Note: Les Dupondt)]
They contract a mysterious illness in Land of Black Gold after swallowing some pills from Dr Müller's aspirin bottle. They are plagued by this affliction in Explorers on the Moon.
Cameos: The two can be seen in Asterix and the Belgians
Thomson and Thompson appear in the 1946 colour edition of Tintin in the Congo (page 1, frame 1), but not in the 1931 black and white edition.
Tapioca
Début: Tintin and the Picaros - Page 1, frame 4 - General; vain and mean ruler of San Theodoros.
Trivia: He seized power from Alcazar, with the help of the Kûrvi-Tasch regime in Borduria.
Tapioca changed the Capital of San Theodoros from Los Dopicas to Tapiocapolis.
Tapioca is a beadlike starch extracted from cassava root. It is used in cooking as a thickening agent, especially in puddings.
Also appears in: also mentioned in The Broken Ear, page 20, frame 4; and in The Red Sea Sharks, page 60 (associated erroneously with Nuevo Rico, instead of San Theodoros!)
Alcazar
Début: The Broken Ear - President of San Theodoros.
Trivia:
He was three(?) times the President of the Repulic of San Theodoros.
He enjoys playing Chess and knife throwing.
Addressed by his wife, Peggy, as ZaZar.
Also appears in: Seven Crystal Balls, The Red Sea Sharks, Tintin and the Picaros
Haddock, Archibald
Début: The Crab with the Golden Claws - Commander of the Karaboudjan.
Trivia:
The Captain's first name is Archibald.
The Captain is the President of the Society of Sober Sailors (S.S.S).
For his contribution in toppling General Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock was promised to be decorated with the Order of San Fernando, by Alcazar.
The Captain owns a Lincoln Zephyr, which can be seen in the Seven Crystal Balls).
Castafiore, Bianca
Début: King Ottokar's Sceptre - page 28, frame 2 - Opera Singer.
Trivia:
The first performance mentioned in the series is held at the Winter Garden in Klow, Syldavia. [King Ottokar's Sceptre: page 28, frame 2]
Bianca often performs at the La Scala, Milan [The Castafiore Emerald: page 32, frame 9].
Bianca owes her world wide fame to her rendition of the Jewel Song from Gounod's Faust. According to a newspaper article on page 57 of The Castafiore Emerald, she was said to have performed Rossini's La Gazza Ladra.
Her voice can be heard via the radio in The land of Black Gold, and Tintin in Tibet.
Also appears in: The Seven Crystal Balls, The Red Sea Sharks, The Calculus Affair, The Castafiore Emerald, Tintin and the Picaros.
Début: Red Rackham's Treasure - The Scientist who invented the Shark Submarine.
Trivia: Calculus's original name in French is Tryphon Tournesol (meaning: Sunflower). The character was inspired by the famous inventor of the bathyscaphe, Professor Auguste Piccard. In The Calculus Affair, the professor was imprisoned in the Fortress of Bakhine. Calculus never uses hearing aids because he believes he is only slightly hard of hearing, and hearing aids are for it is for the deaf (Destination Moon, page 8). In recognition of the contribution Calculus' anti-drinking tablets made, Alcazar appointed Calculus Knight Grand Cross of the Order of San Fernando with Oak Leaves. [Tintin and the Picaros]
Thomson
Début: The Cigars of the Pharaohs (as X33 and X33 bis).
Trivia:
Thomson sports a pointed moustache, his colleague Thompson sports a straight moustache [Land of Black Gold, p2, frames 6, 7, and p9, frame 6, and p33, frame 11; Back Island p2, frame 7; Crab p57, frame 10; Picaros p60, frame 2; Cgars p5, frame 13; Red Sea Sharks p7, frames 13, 14; The Castafiore Emerald, p 47, frame 2, p60 frame 11] / In French, Dupont has une moustache Tournante and Dupond une moustache droite.
The two detectives claim that they have been wearing moustaches since they were born! [Picaros p47, frame 7]
The British Pop group, Thompson Twins is named after the two detectives.
Some say the the two detectives are not brothers, other say they are. Snowy thinks they are brothers [Destination Moon, p18, last frame. Snowy says: This is it! ... Sensational appearance of the Thomson twins! / Entrée sensationnelle des Dupondt brothers! (Note: Les Dupondt)]
They contract a mysterious illness in Land of Black Gold after swallowing some pills from Dr Müller's aspirin bottle. They are plagued by this affliction in Explorers on the Moon.
Cameos: The two can be seen in Asterix and the Belgians
Thomson and Thompson appear in the 1946 colour edition of Tintin in the Congo (page 1, frame 1), but not in the 1931 black and white edition.
Tapioca
Début: Tintin and the Picaros - Page 1, frame 4 - General; vain and mean ruler of San Theodoros.
Trivia: He seized power from Alcazar, with the help of the Kûrvi-Tasch regime in Borduria.
Tapioca changed the Capital of San Theodoros from Los Dopicas to Tapiocapolis.
Tapioca is a beadlike starch extracted from cassava root. It is used in cooking as a thickening agent, especially in puddings.
Also appears in: also mentioned in The Broken Ear, page 20, frame 4; and in The Red Sea Sharks, page 60 (associated erroneously with Nuevo Rico, instead of San Theodoros!)
Alcazar
Début: The Broken Ear - President of San Theodoros.
Trivia:
He was three(?) times the President of the Repulic of San Theodoros.
He enjoys playing Chess and knife throwing.
Addressed by his wife, Peggy, as ZaZar.
Also appears in: Seven Crystal Balls, The Red Sea Sharks, Tintin and the Picaros
Haddock, Archibald
Début: The Crab with the Golden Claws - Commander of the Karaboudjan.
Trivia:
The Captain's first name is Archibald.
The Captain is the President of the Society of Sober Sailors (S.S.S).
For his contribution in toppling General Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros, Haddock was promised to be decorated with the Order of San Fernando, by Alcazar.
The Captain owns a Lincoln Zephyr, which can be seen in the Seven Crystal Balls).
Castafiore, Bianca
Début: King Ottokar's Sceptre - page 28, frame 2 - Opera Singer.
Trivia:
The first performance mentioned in the series is held at the Winter Garden in Klow, Syldavia. [King Ottokar's Sceptre: page 28, frame 2]
Bianca often performs at the La Scala, Milan [The Castafiore Emerald: page 32, frame 9].
Bianca owes her world wide fame to her rendition of the Jewel Song from Gounod's Faust. According to a newspaper article on page 57 of The Castafiore Emerald, she was said to have performed Rossini's La Gazza Ladra.
Her voice can be heard via the radio in The land of Black Gold, and Tintin in Tibet.
Also appears in: The Seven Crystal Balls, The Red Sea Sharks, The Calculus Affair, The Castafiore Emerald, Tintin and the Picaros.
posted by just sam at 12:25 AM
0 comments
Jolyon Wagg "Dada"
Wagg, Jolyon
Début: The Calculus Affair - page 5, frame 2 - Insurance salesman.
Trivia: Wagg is the representative of Rock Bottom Insurance. And he bores people with stories about his Uncle Anatole, the barber.
For his contribution in toppling General Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros, Wagg and his Jolly Follies were admitted to the Order of San Fernando by Alcazar.
Wagg's name in French is Séraphin Lampion, and Serafim Svensson in Swedish.
Also appears in: The Red Sea Sharks (p62, frame 3), Tintin and the Picaros, Flight 714, and The Castafiore Emerald.
See also: Sunny Jim
Début: The Calculus Affair - page 5, frame 2 - Insurance salesman.
Trivia: Wagg is the representative of Rock Bottom Insurance. And he bores people with stories about his Uncle Anatole, the barber.
For his contribution in toppling General Tapioca in Tintin and the Picaros, Wagg and his Jolly Follies were admitted to the Order of San Fernando by Alcazar.
Wagg's name in French is Séraphin Lampion, and Serafim Svensson in Swedish.
Also appears in: The Red Sea Sharks (p62, frame 3), Tintin and the Picaros, Flight 714, and The Castafiore Emerald.
See also: Sunny Jim
posted by just sam at 12:23 AM
3 comments
Rastapopoulos
Rastapopoulos, Roberto
Début: Tintin in America (nameless, frame 5, p57)
Trivia:
Greek-American, first meets Tintin in Cigars of the Pharaoh.
Can be spotted in frame 5, page 57 of Tintin in America.
Also known as the King of Cosmos Pictures.
As Marquis di Gorgonzola (the shipping magnate; airline king; owner of Arabair; media and movie tycoon; dealer in pearls, weapons; and slave trafficker), his financial backing helped Sheik Bab El Ehr to topple Emir Ben Kalish Ezab, but not for long.
Gorgonzola is a type of Italian cheese.
Also appears in: Cigars of the Pharaoh, The Blue Lotus, The Red Sea Sharks, Flight 714.
Début: Tintin in America (nameless, frame 5, p57)
Trivia:
Greek-American, first meets Tintin in Cigars of the Pharaoh.
Can be spotted in frame 5, page 57 of Tintin in America.
Also known as the King of Cosmos Pictures.
As Marquis di Gorgonzola (the shipping magnate; airline king; owner of Arabair; media and movie tycoon; dealer in pearls, weapons; and slave trafficker), his financial backing helped Sheik Bab El Ehr to topple Emir Ben Kalish Ezab, but not for long.
Gorgonzola is a type of Italian cheese.
Also appears in: Cigars of the Pharaoh, The Blue Lotus, The Red Sea Sharks, Flight 714.
posted by just sam at 12:20 AM
3 comments
Figueira figures here
da Figueira, Oliveira
Début: Cigars of the Pharaoh - page 13, frame 7 - Travelling salesman from Lisbon.
Also appears in: Land of Black Gold, The Red Sea Sharks.
Début: Cigars of the Pharaoh - page 13, frame 7 - Travelling salesman from Lisbon.
Also appears in: Land of Black Gold, The Red Sea Sharks.
posted by just sam at 12:18 AM
0 comments
How you should read Tintin
www.tintinologist.org site where to look for !
If you are interested in the TimeLine heres how you should read these books :
1931-32 Tintin in America
1932-34 Cigars of the Pharaoh
1934-35 The Blue Lotus
1935-37 The Broken Ear
1937-38 The Black Island
1938-39 King Ottokar’s Sceptre
1940-41 The Crab with the Golden Claws
(heres where TinTin meets Captain Haddock)
1941-42 The Shooting Star
1942-43 The Secret of the Unicorn
1943-44 Red Rackham’s Treasure
1943-48 The Seven Crystal Balls
1946-49 Prisoners of the Sun
1948-50 Land of Black Gold
1950-53 Destination Moon
1950-54 Explorers on the Moon
1954-56 The Calculus Affair
1958 The Red Sea Sharks
1960 Tintin in Tibet
1963 The Castafiore Emerald
1968 Flight 714
1976 Tintin and the Picaros
posted by just sam at 12:07 AM
1 comments
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
On Lembas
. When they leave Lothlòrien, Frodo gets a crystal that shows light, when everything is dark. They get four boats, and food called Lembas. Lembas is a bread made by the elves, and makes you go without food longer then if you had eaten regular bread.With the boats they drift with the flow of the river, to Amon Hèn.
Lembas, also known as Elvish waybread, is used by Elves on long journeys. One small bite gives you comfort and it ceases your hunger. Lembas was originally created by Melian, who passed it on to Galadriel. The Elves of Lothlorien gave the Fellowship Lembas to eat on their journey.
It could for all that we know taste like "Kaaju Ki Barfi" since everytime I eat kaaju ki bharfi I think of Lembas.
posted by just sam at 10:18 PM
3 comments
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Gurucharan Das
I found all the GuruCharan Das articles especially all the articles published in Times Of India here in this main page and artciles from 1998-2002 here.
posted by just sam at 8:50 PM
4 comments
Francois Gautier
Recently I was just reading an article dated quite a while back from rediff.com under the Home > News > Columnists > Francois Gautier(its always a mess going into specific articles in rediff..more on that later) and I was surprised by two things :
1. The comments were totally against him most of the time. There were around 17 pages of comments and suffice it to say that around 12 pages were totally against him. If you have heard of Hindus being their worst enemies this was another tragic case of the same not to say that all of them were Hindus or if any of them even practcised a sprinkiling of its ways of life. But the point I am making is it was tragically against Francois Gautier who had a favourable impression on me through some of his writings.
2. I tried to post a comment a couple of times over a 15 day span but they were never published. Those comments will never see the light of day I believe.
3. The other thing thats not clear is the comments added to everyday news articles. Now there isnt any archive visible that allows us to view past article comments, nor is it clear if the present comments will "ever be seen" by us or anyone. Will need to clarify this with relevant authorities on the matter.
You can read Francois Gautier's article here
1. The comments were totally against him most of the time. There were around 17 pages of comments and suffice it to say that around 12 pages were totally against him. If you have heard of Hindus being their worst enemies this was another tragic case of the same not to say that all of them were Hindus or if any of them even practcised a sprinkiling of its ways of life. But the point I am making is it was tragically against Francois Gautier who had a favourable impression on me through some of his writings.
2. I tried to post a comment a couple of times over a 15 day span but they were never published. Those comments will never see the light of day I believe.
3. The other thing thats not clear is the comments added to everyday news articles. Now there isnt any archive visible that allows us to view past article comments, nor is it clear if the present comments will "ever be seen" by us or anyone. Will need to clarify this with relevant authorities on the matter.
You can read Francois Gautier's article here
posted by just sam at 6:38 PM
2 comments
Links
Previous Posts
- Our Backstabbing Neighbours
- My Spirited Talk with a Simple Man
- SPIRITUALITY 101 - MY TWO CENTS
- A NOTE ON DARWINIAN EVOLUTION - POWER OF SUBCONSCI...
- HOW NOT TO GO THE JACK WELCH WAY – END CORPORATE I...
- EVIL THE WORLD – WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
- SOURCE OF HAPPINESS
- THE SECRET OF LIFE - CROSSING THE MIND BY ENGROSSI...
- BOLLYWOOD DIRECTORS ARE TOP PLAGIARISTS
- SHAHRUKH KHAN UNFORTUNATE HYPOCRITE
Archives
- 12 June 2005
- 19 June 2005
- 26 June 2005
- 03 July 2005
- 10 July 2005
- 22 June 2008
- 08 November 2009
- 15 November 2009
- 14 February 2010
- 21 February 2010
- 28 February 2010
- 07 March 2010
- 12 May 2013
- 28 July 2013
