Musings 78: Why do Hindus worship the cow?

For a Hindu mind, the world is a manifestation of the divine. Each and every aspect of the creation is sacred. The elements, stone, plants, animals and humans are all worthy of worship. However, the veneration earned by the cow is matchless. She is gO mātā, the mother. She is a devata (deity).

Non-Hindus find it difficult to understand and appreciate this unique status of the cow in Sanātana Dharma (Hinduism). They can’t be blamed though, as most Hindus struggle to understand and explain it themselves.

The śāsrtra and ācāryas offer explanations from different perspectives. This post takes up only one of such explanations, strictly from the point of view of the Yajña.

-I-

To answer the question, we need to understand,

1. What is Veda?

By Veda, Hindus do not mean any book/sets of books. It is the sum total of all knowledge/spiritual laws concerning/guiding the cosmos and its relationship with the life principle.

a. The Veda is apauruṣeya. That is, it has no author. The knowledge is revealed to the seekers in their dhyāna (meditation). Thus the seekers transform to seers, the ṛṣis. Therefore, the words of ṛṣis (śabda pramāṇa) are considered as the Veda Itself.

b. The Veda is infinite. Meaning, the knowledge/spiritual laws regarding the cosmos is not exhaustive. There is no end to the knowledge. Different ṛṣis at different times got different aspects and dimensions of it revealed. For e.g. the Gāyatri mantra was revealed to sage Viśvāmitra by Godess Sāvitri (the Sun god). In future too, many ṛṣis will be revealed with insights from dimensions unknown.

c. The Veda is timeless. It means that the knowledge about the cosmos is born with the cosmos.

d. The Veda is eternal. Meaning, these “truths” stand on their own merit. It doesn’t cease to exist if humans (or other higher beings) forget/fail to understand/acknowledge it.

e. The Veda is śruti. It means that the truths revealed to the ṛṣis are passed down the generations by the word of mouth- from father to son, Guru to śiṣya.

Therefore, the true welfare of the world is possible, only by knowing and adhering to the Veda.

(However, today when we say Veda, we refer to the knowledge revealed to different ṛṣis at various points of time in history, as compiled by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa into four volumes viz. Ṛk, Yajus, Sāma and Atharva Veda.)

At the heart of the Veda is Yajña.

2. What is Yajña?

Yajña is a Vedic rite involving Agni (the sacrificial fire) and the chanting of mantras. It is a religious duty to be performed with an explicit objective of the welfare to the world. It has to be undertaken with devotion, in a spirit of service and dedication.

Yajña invokes the respective devatas (deities) in charge of various aspects of the world (like Indra, Varuṇa, Vāyu etc), offers their rightful shares (not a bribe) to ensure the smooth functioning of the world. The devatas and the mortals are mutually dependent for their existence. This ensures that all beings are peaceful and progress in their natural pace of (spiritual) evolution.

(It must also be noted that mantras are not prayers. They are potent sounds, the repetition of and the meditation on which guides one to the foundations of the cosmos. It also gives the desired results, but most importantly lead one to self-realisation. Śāstra is clear that knowing the meaning of mantra is secondary)

3. Who is qualified to perform Yajña?

If yajña is for the welfare of the world, anybody who has the right intent should be qualified to perform it. However, it is not as simple as that!

Is there anyone who doesn’t want peace, progress and prosperity in the world? All of us wish well for everyone till such time others’ welfare require a sacrifice of our most cherished desires! In this game of my desires versus your welfare, mine always has the preference. The point is, as long as we have the last trace of selfishness in us, this talk of serving the world/humanity etc is a joke.

So the performer of yajña (yajña karta) has to be absolutely selfless. In the Vedic organisation of the society, the community of people trained to be selfless (through strict physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual disciplines) are called the brāhmaṇas. In other words, he alone is a brāhmaṇa who is selfless, and has committed his life for the welfare of the world as prescribed by the Veda. It is therefore prescribed that a brāhmaṇa should take up the study of the Veda and the performance of yajña to the exclusion of everything else. A brāhmaṇa should NOT earn a living, should NOT possess wealth (except the wealth of knowledge) and ALWAYS beg for his food. He is permitted to marry for the sake of having children, who should be brought up in the same cultural envirionment, with intense training, so that they become qualified for the performance of yajña.

(Brāhmaṇa is one of the four varṇas. Kṣatṛya, Vaiśya and Śūdra being the other three. Each varṇa has prescribed duties. Varṇa vyavasta should not be confused with the caste system.)

4. What is offered in Yajña?

This is where the cow comes into picture. The most important offerings in a yajña is sourced from the cow. In the absence of cow (its yields) yajña cannot be performed/complete/fruitful.

We mentioned that the backbone of the Veda is the yajña. It must also be stated that the backbone of the yajña is the brāhmaṇa (yajña karta) and the cow!

5. What is the status of the cow?

A śānti mantra (prayer for world peace) from upaniṣad goes-

svasti-prajā-bhyaḥ pari-pāla-yaṁtāṁ
nyāyena mārgeṇa mahīṁ mahīśāḥ
go-brāhmaṇebhyaḥ śubham-astu nityaṁ
lokāḥ samastāḥ sukhino-bhavaṁtu

oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ
oṃ

“May the well-being of all people be protected
May the powerful and mighty leaders administer with law and justice.
May the cows and brāhmaṇas remain auspicious always,
May all the world’s beings be free and happy.”

Note the portion that says, “may the cows and brāhmaṇas remain auspicious always.” In the Vedic view, cows enjoy a status higher to that of the brāhmaṇas (yajña karta)!

-II-

Yajña also has a metaphorical meaning.

The word yajña is also used outside the religious context as any co-operative endeavour undertaken selflessly with the highest commitment, dedication and devotion to the collective good of the society.

The cow embodies the yajña spirit as everything related to it is beneficial to the world. Milk, curd, ghee, urine, dung, hide (after its natural death) are only a few examples.

She is gO mātā because she lives the ideal of motherhood- nourishing the children even at the expense of oneself.

Before we conclude.

a. A quote of Śrī Candraśekhara Sarasvati Svāmikal, the 68th Śankarācārya of the Kānci Peetham, on gO saṃrakṣaṇaṃ (cow protection) is my inspiration for this note.

b. The disscusion here is based on certain premises. One may contest the validity of those. However, not under this post. It may be taken up as a separate post on another day.

c. Love, veneration, sacredness and worship cannot/need not be validated.

Oṃ!

—

Śrīnāth Mohandās

April 02, 2018

Musings 77: A New Indian

India’s intellectual elite have not come to terms with the realities of the day. There is a significant shift in the thinking of our people, especially among the youth. What used to be politically correct, and therefore “sacred”, through the 80s, 90s and 2000s are not so anymore. I will highlight only three of such issues.

1. Indian Secularism is Dishonest

Secularism was smuggled into India, through the 42nd amendment of the constitution, during emergency (1975-77), by Smt. Indira Gandhi. It had a disgraceful entry.

Secularism added NO value to the Indian ethos of respect for all religions, which was shaped through thousands of years, with its active engagement with the Dharmic ideals. It also challenged the idea of “mutual respect” and downgraded it to mere “tolerance” among communities.

Secularism practised in India don’t even live upto its own standards elsewhere. Through a policy of selective intervention, we have alienated communities and pitted one against the other. Four decades later, we have a situation where the Hindu temples are controlled and taken over by the govt., Uniform Civil Code remain unimplemented, and religious institutions funding Maoism, Terrorism and other break-India projects are left unchecked (even encouraged!) for the minority card they flaunt.

2. Not a Global citizen, but a Global Indian

The left through post colonial, sub altern and post modernist studies control India’s education. It is in pursuit of undoing the “Indian” identity of our people. They do it in the pretext of upgrading our people to a universal identity of “global citizens”, rather than a “jingoistic” identity of an Indian.

They would openly support break-India brigade in JNU and elsewhere, provide intellectual and material capital to Maoists and Naxalites, pamper and promote Dravidian and northern chauvinists, mastermind language and regional wars, and manufacture an imaginary north-south divide. All of this is their earnest effort to dilute the cherished Indian identity of an average Indian. And what they offer in exchange is a soul-less global identity, or a chauvinist regional identity.

Young India is ready to the embrace world. But not as rootless refugees. We will embrace the world as the torch bearers of this ancient Indian civilisation.

Imported theories of social justice should fall. It should be replaced with new theories that best understand and reflect the realities and aspirations of our communities. The intrinsic unity of our communities should be brought back to the fore.

An Indian grand narrative that is assertive, yet respectful to all communities of the world is in the making. More and more of young India wants to adopt it, to make a better sense of who they are and what their roles and responsibilities are in the international scheme.

3. No more divided by castes, but united by Dharma

The divide and rule policy of the British was inherited by the Indian political class.

The golden rules are:

a. Never let Hindu unite. Keep them fragmented by oiling the caste fault lines.

b. Never let minority religious and linguist communities embrace mainstream. Patronise the unreasonables among them, and promote them as the communities’ unchallenged leadership.

Lesser and lesser Hindus identify with caste these days. A majority of them have rediscovered their unity in Dharma. It has reconnected them to their civilisational past.

Go for an evening walk in any Indian city. 7 out of 10 times, you will come across a young Hindu, who is not casteist, but confident and assertive of his/her Hindu identity forged in the ideals of Dharma.

---

Śrīnāth Mohandās

March 18, 2018

 

Musings 76: Openness?

Openness is a word that is widely used in our conversations. But most of us have not clearly thought about it.

Many of us misunderstand openness to be a state of mind where we expose ourselves to all kinds of contradictory ideas and views, without having a set of ideals for ourselves to stand on. The resultant confusion is what is often referred to as ‘grey areas’. Many a times, what is perceived as the complexities of an issue is nothing more than our own confusions regarding it. It takes an honest man/woman to analyse and understand what is what.

In our discussions, be it at home, workspace, or in social media, we generally don’t accept that we are confused. We may simply don’t know enough, but try to pass it on to others as their lack of understanding. Most of the time people use words and phrases like “shady”, “nuanced”, “has many layers…” etc. when they are confused and too egoistic to acknowledge it.

There is nothing wrong in being confused about something. It is a stage in the natural progression of thoughts. It only shows that we are somewhere between ignorance and clarity. However, acknowledging it is important. Else, we may get lost forever and never reach the shores of clarity.

Some of us get attached to our confusions. Some are even proud of them! Confusion is also projected as a sign of intelligence and deep thinking! A ‘confused individual’ is just a confused individual. He/she is not an intellectual. Yet it is true that many confused individuals decorate positions of influence in our society. They often pass as intellectuals.

—

If we are to live a life committed to self realisation (self improvement may be a more acceptable term), we need to adhere to some view of life. We may call it religion, ideology, or simply a value and belief system. Each system comes with its own sets of ideals and practices. If they improve our quality of life and grant a higher purpose and vision for life, we may pursue it in peace in exclusion.

Say, I am comitted to a certain value-belief system, and to that extent don’t subscribe to other systems, yet acknowledge their effectiveness to others, would I qualify as an open-minded person?

There is no reason why I shouldn’t be, provided my acknowledgement of the effectiveness (and therefore, the validity) of other value-belief systems is out my genuine respect for others who follow their chosen path.

—

We need people who live their ideals and convictions. Not the ones who sell their confusions.

We need to become such a one, ourselves!

—

Śrīnāth Mohandās

March 04, 2017

Musings 75: Are we all equals?

-I-

“No” would be politically incorrect to say. The society that we live in is intolerant to that view. Yet it is worth exploring the ideas of equals and un-equals.

(The society’s intolerance is justified. It rises from the haunting memories of a violent past- the heydays of slavery and other extreme forms of discrimination.)

“We are not the same, but are equal” is an often quoted statement. It acknowledges the fact that people are different and not the same. Except for the similarities that we share as a species, as individuals, the differences are all too obvious- physically, emotionaly and intellectually. Yet we are all equals. Meaning, the “value” of each individual is the same!

What then is the “value” of an individual? How do we measure it? Physical, emotional and intellectual parameters certainly are incapable of determining the value of an individual. That is no level playing field.

So, with half the mind, when we believe that we are all equals, the other half also asks- “but how do I know?”

-II-

If we believe in creationism, that the universe and living beings are “created” by God, then we have an easy answer. “All of us are equal because it is the one God who created all of us and he created all of us equally.” We may replace God with “Nature.” The same argument can be maintained. Yet by that logic, equal status should be equally shared among all things living and non living. But by no means do we (the society that we live in) accept that. Our “we” atmost accepts humankind. Animals and plants born and raised in a country don’t enjoy citizenship rights.

The Semitic religions believe that humans have a superior status because “God willed” so, and all “lesser forms” of creation are created for human enjoyment. These monotheist religions, also are not ready to grant equal status to “infidels” among humans, who violates their conception of God. The eastern religions, at least in principle, accept equal status for all members of creation- living and non living.

-III-

How do I know that we are all equals?

I believe, we can never intellectually “know” that we are equals. Because we are NOT equals by any standards of ‘objectivity’. It can’t be empirically proved. Yet if we claim we are equals, it is ONLY because we choose to ‘believe’ so.

Btw, belief is not a bad word. It is no lesser to logical rationality.

The belief, however, sparks from a deep intuitive feeling of oneness with others. Because, at times, we are able to see ourselves in others!

It is this belief that we are equals that has formed the basis for democracies. The belief is legally protected by a contract- the constitution, and is carefully preserved and propogated through the life of a society, through generations, through education. The idea of ‘human rights’ is but an expression of this belief.

Do I have certain rights as a human being? Yes, I do.

Who has given me these rights?

God/Nature? That will be the route of  the religions (creationism/animism).

It is the nation-state (or let us simply say the society) that I live in, that bestows me “my rights.” It is a contract between the citizen and the state. The moment the nation-state collapse, the citizen that I am, is reduced to an individual who is at the mercy of the law of the jungle- the survival of the fittest.

-IV-

Are we ALWAYS able to see ourselves in others?

Are all of us EQUALLY good at seeing ourselves in others?

“NO” is the honest answer. For every Śankarāchārya/Buddha who attain the non-dualistic vision of the world, there are a hundred thousand (human) brutes who cannot sense the grossest expressions of pain in others. Most of us belong somewhere between the extremes.

It must be to acknowledge this reality- the truth about the world, that the eastern religions- the religions based on Dharma, discuss about a ladder of (spiritual) evolution among living beings.

How much do we see ourselves in others?

How far, wide and deep can we percieve this vision?

-V-

If we acknowledge this ladder of (spiritual) evolution, then our whole argument that we are equals again comes under question.

Am I equal to a Śankarāchārya/Buddha?

Politically, as a citizen of a country, Yes.

Socially, as an individual unit of the society, Yes.

But morally, in terms of the non-dualistic vision of life?

__

Śrīnāth Mohandās
February 27, 2018

Musings 74: A Simple Guide-line While Choosing/Following a Master

–On Guru-Śiṣya Paramapara–

The tradition of Guru-Śiṣya paramapra (Master-Disciple Lineage) is one of the most sacred institutions of the Sanātana Dharma, that is Hinduism. Every spiritual-religious tradition that branched out of the Mother faith, at various points of time in history, for various social, political reasons (like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism …), not only continue to cherish Dharma at its heart, but also has well established Guru-Śiṣya parampara(s). Therefore, to undermine this institution is to strangulate the Dhārmic traditions and the millions of seekers working their way to Ātma Sakṣatkara (Self-realisation).

The importance Guru-Śiṣya Paramapara in Dhārmic Traditions

“Why do I need a Guru at all?” is a question that we often hear people ask. “After all, spirituality is between me and (my) God” they would conclude. How do one answer this?

To answer this, one should understand the paradigm from which this question rises. When someone asks this question he/she has a certain understanding of the concepts of ‘God’, ‘reality’, ‘Guru’, ‘spirituality’ and ‘I’ (oneself), which unfortunately is NOT in sync with the nature of the reality, the goal of seeking, the purpose of human life etc. as per the Dhārmic world view.

In other words, if my concept of God, religion, spirituality etc. is in tune with the ideas of Abrahamic faiths, it is natural that such a question has as a standing. For e.g. if ‘God’ is an entity that rests above the clouds,on a throne, in His kingdom of Heaven, judging people (on Earth) as a good and bad and deciding their fate there upon, dispatching them to heaven and hell accordingly- then the question why do I need a Guru is indeed valid. In such a case, I just have to be good person, doing “good” deeds in this world, by following the commandments of the God, which is recorded in His “book”, and wait for my turn to go to heaven, where upon I lead a life of pleasures.

On the contrary, heaven is not a concern of the Dhārmic traditions. (Dhārmic traditions do acknowledge the concepts of heaven and hell, but for it they are of the nature of a ‘purgatory,’ where one works out his/her Kārmic baggage only to come back in a human form for the liberation from the cycle of births and deaths). In fact, for the Dhārmic traditions, Iśwara (the concepts of Iśwara and God are not one and the same) is secondary to the Brahman- The Truth (not to be confused with Lord Brahma of the Hindu Trinity).

That is, a seeker in the Dhārmic tradition is not after pleasing a/the God and reserving a berth in the heaven post death, but is only in pursuit of realising the Truth which is the fundamental essence of the cosmos and also of him/herself. Each seeker has to find his/her way, which is very subjective and personal. This is where the role of a Guru comes in. A Guru becomes absolutely essential in this pursuit.

Vivekachūdāmaņi, the spiritual treatise, composed by Ādi Śankara atleast 2500 years ago (the colonial historians date it at circa 800 CE, which the traditionalists reject), beautifully explains this in the following verse-

“As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the Self, which is hidden by Māya and its effects, is to be attained through the instruction of a Knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through perverted arguments.”
– Vivekachūdāmaņi/Verse 65/translation by Swāmi Mādhavānanda

 

But then, who is qualified to be a Guru?

Now this I believe is ‘the question’ which all of us should be asking. Can anyone wearing ochre robes, mumbling Sanskrit verses, opening a shop down town, and claiming oneself to be a Guru qualifies him/herself to be a Guru?

Absolutely NOT.

The Dhārmic scriptures unequivocally lists down two criteria for one to qualify as a Guru.

1. Śrotriya

One who is not just learned and well versed in śāstra (Dhārmic scriptures), but also lives and acts according to it.

2. Brahmaniṣtha

One who has realised the Truth and continue to operate in the outside world well established in IT.

It is not possible for a lay person to know/understand if an individual is a Brahmaniṣtha, for which he/her him/herself should realise the Truth first. However, it is certainly possible to check (to a reasonable extent) if he/she is a Śrotriya, provided one has learnt the basics of śastra(s) from an Achārya (teacher), or at least through self study with the help (authentic) study materials.

(One should also note the cardinal yogic principle here- An individual can choose an Achārya, but not a Guru. It is always the Guru who chooses his/her disciple. The declaration is that, “the Guru arrives when the śiṣya is ready.” Which means that when the disciple attains the right (spiritual) maturity, he/she shall attract/get attracted by the Guru.)

The Threat

The threat to Guru-Śiṣya Paramapara is as much from inside as from outside. While the attack on the Kānchi Shankarāchārya, Pejāwar Swāmi, Rāmānuja Jeer Swāmi and Swāmi Nityānanda were PROVED to be conspiracies hatched by the missionaries with the tacit support of NGO fronts and mainstream media*

(*It must be noted that each of these cases fell apart when they came to the court for zero evidence and they were all acquitted. But the years of well orchestrated negative propaganda continue to stick to them.)

is an external threat, fraudsters donning the garb of Guru and winning gullible followers, in some cases as many as 50 million!, is an internal threat. Needless to say, the internal threat is far more grave than the external one.

The Way Forward

So how can a common man/woman, sincere in the spiritual quest, not to fall for fraudsters?

1. Apply common sense

a. Thoroughly scrutinise the claims of the individual with reason and logic, in the light of śastra(s).

b. Do a background check of the individual and the institution(s) (the controversies, court cases, property and other financial deals, reported violations of law etc.) However, one should be very careful to look at all information available- for and against, and do so without bias.

2. Clarify and collect information about the tradition and lineage the individual comes from.

3. Interact with the senior disciples of the Master.

4. Realise that your foundational study of the śāstra is a prerequisite.

5. Be in Satsanga

Satsanga literally means being in the company of the pious/wise/good ones. Since these words are very subjective, in this context, Satsanga may be taken as, to be in the company of people/ to have conversations and discussions with people, who are already in the path of seeking and is initiated into various sādana (spiritual disciplines) in various traditions.

This injunction of the Mahabhārata should always be kept in mind.

“The one who doesn’t know what is right and what is wrong, and is leading an unrighteous life, that person is to be discarded, even though he may be a Guru.” (Śanti Parva/ 5.77)

—
Srinath Mohandas
August 27, 2017

Musings 73: Sidhbhari

Perhaps the (his)story of Sidhbari starts circa 700 BCE when sage Kapila trekked across the magnificent Dauldhar ranges of the Himalayas to reach this tiny Pahadi hamlet. Perched in a small cave in one of the hillocks, he continued his spiritual seeking with intense self discipline. The result came out as the Sāmkhya school of the Hindu philosophy, which went on to provide the philosophical foundation for the teachings of a Siddharta Gautama- the Buddha, who would walk this path a hundred years later.

27 centuries have passed since Kapila rishi sat here absorbed deep in Himself. I was fortunate to step into the very same cave yesterday.

In 1959, when the Peoples’ Republic of China invaded Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama along with his community had to exile to India. They crossed over to India at Tawang (Arunachal Pradesh) and proceeded 2,800 kms north-west to Mcleod Ganj, Dharamsala (Himachal Pradesh). Also known as the little Lhasa, the Tibetan government-in-exile is headquartered here. It is barely 10 kms north-west of the Kapila cave.

5 kms further up is Akanjar Mahadev Temple on the shores of a small but fast flowing ice cold rivulet. The legend goes that Arjun, the mighty Pandava, while preparing for the Mahabharata war, in exile, meditated on its banks and won the Pashupata missile from Mahadev.

Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda established Sandeepany Himalayas at Sidhbari in mid 1970s as the second residential campus for the teaching/training of Advait Vedant. The place was specially chosen for its spiritual climate as it is home to many Siddhas (of various traditions), absorbed in deep meditation for decades and centuries together (not an exaggeration).

It was in this quite valley where Gurudev retired for around 6 months when the Emergency was raging (1975-77) and the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi revoked his passport and created hurdles in his work (for his open criticism of her subversion of democracy). His days were spent in sadhna and writing commentaries for the Upanishad(s) which continue to serve seekers and scholars across the globe.

Two decades later, when Gurudev attained Mahasamadhi, his mortal remains was brought here and laid to final rest (bhu-samadhi) at the Chinmaya Tapovan Ashram. It stands at 1.5 kms south-west of the Kapila cave.

As I jot down this note, sitting next to Gurudev samadhi sthan, looking at the majestic cloud covered peaks of the Dauladhar, on this Janmasthami Day, a feeling of gratitude is sweeping me over. This Tapo-bhumi has been contributing to the spiritual culture of the world since ages. Sidhbari is quiet, but vigorous.

Humble pranams to life in all forms and beings!

Hearty Janmashtami greetings to one and all!

Hari Om!

—
Srinath Mohandas
August 14, 2017

Musings 72: Bahubali: Arise, O Strong Armed!

“Time gives every coward an opportunity to become a knight. The moment is now!”

(Samay Har Kayar Ko Shoorveer Banne Ka Avsar Deta Hai, Veh Kshan Yahi Hai)

When Amarendra Bahubali admonish a terror stricken Kumara Varman unable to defend the royal women folk of Kuntala from the invading Pindaris, did you feel the scribbles of an ancient poet-sage on a dried palm leaf?

Did you see the silhouette of Bahubali, the legendary Arjuna, when the on-screen Bahubali lifted the spirits of the Kuntala prince with his inspiring words?

Right! The sequence of Kumara Varman and Amarendra Bahubali (undercover as Shivu), was inspired from the story of Uttara Kumara from Virata Parva of the Mahabharata.

As I watched Bahubali 2 last night, I couldn’t but replay that episode of Mahabharat, the way it unfolded before the teenager I was, while reading Rajaji (C Rajagopalachari) in the silence of a moonlit night.

—

The Ajnata-vaas was almost over. Living incognito, in the palace of Virata, in the kingdom of Matsya, was Draupadi and the Pandavas- the scions of Kuru vamsha, the rightful heirs to the throne of Hastinapura!

The Kauravas trying hard to locate their rivals, had finally got a hint of their presence in Viratanagari, the capital of King Virata. Wasting no time, Duryodhana declared war on Matsya, and pounced on it from the south.

With the king away from the capital, the stage was set for a young prince’s claim to glory. Enter Uttara Kumara, the sixteen year old yuvraj of Matsya.

Flushed with excitement, and over confidence obvious to his age, he grabbed the bow and arrows. As he wrapped the armour around, he swore to his sister to bring the capes of Bhishma, Drona, Kripa, Karna and Duryodhana… to make clothes for her dolls! With Brihannala, the eunuch, as his charioteer, he flew to the war front.

All was well till Uttara Kumara met Kauravas face to face. He stood there staring at a sea of soldiers, elephants, horses, and chariots. The gleam of armours and weapons was blinding. Terror struck his heart.

Riding the white stallion was a fierce looking Duryodhana. Next to him was god like Bhishma. Kripa, Drona, Karna, Ashwattama…. awe inspiring men stood galore on the other side.

Uttara Kumara was drowning in the sea raging inside his chest. The terrified prince flung his bow, leapt from the chariot and started running back to the city.

“Disgrace not your noble birth. Better die in the battle than run away.”

Screaming thus, an infuriated Brihannala, the eunuch, swung into action. She grabbed the fleeing prince and threw him back on the chariot. Taking charge, infusing fresh courage into his heart, holding him by her side, she rode fiercely into the Kurus.

Uttara Kumara was yet to know that he was under the wings of Dhananjaya, the conqueror of monarchs. Brihannala was Arjuna in disguise!

—
Srinath Mohandas
May 09, 2017

Musings 71: My Attempt with Learning by Doing

How do you convince someone that an individual learns better by “doing” than by “listening”?

Can you do it by making her “listen” to your long lecture on the superior nature of “doing” w.r.t learning?

Isn’t that like you becoming angry on someone for believing that anger transforms a person?

So, that’s exactly what I did a few months back when trying to convince my friend, a young enthusiastic teacher, that the lecture method, inspite of its benefits, is a very limited and inefficient way of teaching and learning. Of course, she wasn’t convinced.

The Debate

She argued that children need to be ‘taught first,’ before introducing to a task- which meant that children have to be explicitly told what they are ‘supposed to discover,’ before getting into the task!

I realised that her understanding of teaching and learning came from what is known as a behaviourist model, where you assume that the learner doesn’t know anything about what is being taught. In other words, the assumption is that the learner is a ‘blank slate’ on which the teacher writes ‘Knowledge’ that she posses. Note that, here, teacher believes that there is something fixed called “Knowledge” which the learner doesn’t know, which the teacher imparts. In this approach, the teacher may be willing to do activities in her class, but would want to control the outcomes because her whole focus is on getting “the right result”- Knowledge! If a learner discovers something else in the process, which the teacher did not intend, that will be completely over looked.

That is, the whole idea is that “there is ‘Knowledge,’ which I let you ‘pick up’ from this basket (task) that I have placed before you.”

There is no agency for the learner. This is what we call a typical ‘teacher centric education.’

Constructivism, as opposed to behaviourism, believes in ‘constructing’ knowledge. It doesn’t believe in ‘the Knowledge’ handed down as the gospel of truth from generation to generation. It argues that “individuals actively create knowledge” in the context of their own experiences. Here a teacher would give learners a task to explore various possibilities. There is no concept of “the knowledge” which all individuals “have to” discover invariably, in the absence of which she would “fail”. Therefore, a single task may give ten different insights to ten different learners – all of which can be valid, important and goes into the corpus of ‘knowledge- under construction.’

(This, I find, is most important in social sciences education, where there is no “Truth” but only knowledge which is continuosly built, demolished and re-built)

The developed world has embraced constructivism long back. But many of our teachers are still committed to the old world view of teaching and learning. Infact they are so faithful to it that when exposed to constructivist methods and strategies, they modify and apply it in the behaviourist model!

Back to Our Issue

I was a little disturbed that I couldn’t make my young teacher-friend see (appreciate) my point. Partly because it told me something about my own skills as a teacher and a communicator. However, I left it unfinished, for another day.

Months later, today, I was asked by a senior colleague to present before a group of educators, various constructivist paradigms of teaching and learning. As I was preparing for it, it suddenly occurred to me why I failed with my friend!

Rather than letting my friend ‘discover’ constructivism as a superior teaching-learning process through her personal exploration, I was eager to impart ‘the Knowledge’ that it was great. In other words, I was trying to “teach” her constructivism through the behaviourist model.

What an irony!

—
Srinath Mohandas
May 04, 2017

Musings 70: Ramdas Prison

Half way up the Golconda fort is ‘Ramdas prison’.

The year was AD 1673. Kancherla Gopanna was a Tehsildar (revenue collector) in the court of Sultan Abul Hassan Tana Shah, the last of the Qutub Shahi Sultans (of the sovereign kingdom of Golconda in Deccan). An ardent devotee of Lord Ram, he was very loyal and dedicated to the Sultan. People were also fond of him for his charitable ways and affectionately called him Goparaju.

It was festival time in the local temple at Badrachalam and Goparaju was invited. Some of us might know that Badrachalam on the banks of the Godavari is a very auspicious place as Lord Ram with Lakshman and Sita is believed to have stayed there during their exile. The sight of the deities of Ram, Lakshman and Sita, beautifully decorated and taken in a procession with soulful chanting of sankirtana, invoked deep emotions in Goparaju sending him into a trance.

Deeply touched by the love and devotion of the people and saddened by the dilapidated state of the ancient temple, he was determined to renovate it.

He poured in all his savings, but was not enough. His family contributed a fortune, still fell short. People pooled in their best, it was insufficient. That was when the villagers requested him to spend the revenue collections with a promise that they would repay after the harvest. Convinced that he was doing it for a noble cause and that he would be able to explain to the Sultan, 6 lakhs worth silver coins were diverted from the revenue collections as the final lease for construction. Within a month, on the Ram Navmi day of AD 1674, the grand Sita Ramachandra Swamy temple of Badrachalam was consecrated.

The harvest failed. People were apologetic. Sultan was enraged. Goparaju was sentenced to solitary confinement for life.

Considering Goparaju’s honest service record and also his uncle being a senior bureaucrat in the administration, the Sultan offered to let him free (but stripped from service) on his repayment of the diverted funds. But he and his family had already exhausted all their wealth on the temple.

In AD 1674, Goparaju walked into… nay, crawled into the dreaded rock prison, a hundred ton monolith with a carved inside and a single entrance of the size of a small kitchen ventilator on the roof. Armed with the courage of conviction and faith in Ram he accepted his fate to spend rest of his life in the 9 ft by 4 ft rock cut prison.

The legend has it that:

After 12 years, on a Ram Navmi two young warriors entered the bed chambers of the Sultan in the middle of the night. Introducing themselves to be the emmisaries of ‘Badrachala Ramadasu’, they presented Sultan with six lakh worth of gold coins imprinted with Lord Ram’s seal. Their demand was to accept it as a compensation for the fund Ramadasu diverted from the royal treasury and to order his immediate release. A bewildered Sultan on realising that Bandrachala Ramadasu mentioned by the young warriors was none other than Goparaju (who considered himself as the servant of Lord Ram of Badrachala) obliged to the demand. He also identified the young warriors as Lord Ram and Lakshman.

On his release, a surprised and totally unaware Goparaju met Sultan only to be wrapped in a loving embrace for enabling him the darshan of Lord Ram and Lakshman. The Sultan also returned the entire gold to the Badrachalam temple.

Since then, it has been the royal custom of the Sultans of Hyderabad to send gifts to the Sita Ramachandra Swamy temple of Badrachalam on the occasion of Ram Navami celebrations every year!

Thus goes the legend of the Ramdas prison at the Golconda fort.

—
Srinath Mohandas
January 18, 2017

Musings 69: Men, Women & Marriage

It is disappointing to see young women compromise their lives for marriage. It is even worse when they are brainwashed into believing that it is all for love.

How many times have we seen talented and ambitious girls speaking about independence, nation building, empowerment and liberation getting timid at the first signal of marriage and walking into the mould of a 19th century house wife, the very stereotypes they aspire to break? I feel concerned when I see my near and dear ones taking this path.

Who is responsible for this? Who should take the blame? “The society,” is the cliched answer. Society, afterall, is a collection of all of us.

I see that the problem (and therefore the solution) lies in men- our attitudes to women. Our expectations from various roles played by her- as a mother, sister, friend, girl friend, wife are grossly misplaced. Most of us don’t understand what a woman is. We see woman not for what she is, but for what she should be according to the stories fed to us, as supplemented by our own imagination.

This is the mould that I was reffering to- carefully preserved, enriched by generations, faithfully passed on to future; the very same mould into which a young woman gleefully walks unaware, in her over enthusiasm to be desired and accepted. Welcome to patriarchy.

Marriage is a social arrangement. There is nothing inherently divine about it. The sooner we realise and accept this, the better. The sacredness of a marriage is the sacredness the man and the woman brings to it. Two dependent individuals, burdened by their own misconceptions about love and life, cannot bring fragrance to a marriage. They live as prisoners to each other, deluded that it is love, unaware of what it should be. Women often pay a greater price in it. Because the odds are stacked against her. Thanks to patriarchy.

Love is liberating. Anything that pulls us down and keeps us dependent on anyone cannot be love. Possesiveness is not love. It is pure dependency, slavish attachment arising from one’s insecurities. It can neither liberate the other, nor oneself. Yet most young women mistake this possessiveness as love. They fall for it flat.

Young women must realise that not everything their boyfriends/ husbands say come from selfless love. Many a times it is a man’s insecurity that comes out as advice to his girl friend/ wife. If your man tells you not to go for a second show with your friends, you should be willing to ask him if his concern is your safety or his insecurity of being less relevant in your life (because you can have fun without him). If your man tells you to give up on your career, because he earns enough to take care of you and kids, you should make him understand that career isn’t just about earning but a genuine expression of oneself. If you have a habit of letting your man manage all your finances, and taking a monthly allowance from him for your personal needs, then you should realise that financial independence plays a very important role in your independence as an individual.

Are men and women equal? I presume all educated people will say “Yes”. But I wonder how many of us realise the depth of the statement and the responsibility it brings along. For most people it is a mere politically correct statement to make. They don’t realise that their actions do not support their speech. Only a few understand and live it.

Love nourishes, helps us grow as individuals. If love is at the heart of marriage, it is the most liberating social institution built by human kind. If not, it is the most oppressive of the systems. How does one know if his/her marriage/ love life is built with love? Look at yourself.

Is your partner helping you grow, evolve as a person? Compared to yesterday, how much independent are you today- physically, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually?

It is for you to decide.

Letting a woman grow in independence is in the best interest of everyone. It is as much the responsibility of a man (provided he is independent himself) as that of a woman. At the end of the day it isn’t about men and women, but about right and wrong.

It is about justice and injustice.

….

Dedicated to my friend whose experiences inspired me to jot this down.

—
Srinath Mohandas
December 03, 2016