"गीता में श्री कृष्ण जी ने सभी प्रधान चीज़ों को स्वयं का प्रतिरूप बताया है. पेड़ों में ख़ुद को पीपल बताया है. जब पशु-पक्षियों की बात आई तो उन्होंने स्वयं को सिंह, मगरमच्छ और गरूड़ बताया है। ये सभी मांसाहारी हैं। श्री कृष्ण जी ने स्वयं को व्यक्त करने के लिए श्रेष्ठ पशु-पक्षियों के नाम पर मांसाहारी जीवों को ही क्यों चुना.. ??"
बहुत सादा पर एक गूढ़ सवाल. मैं समझता हूँ उसमे माँसाहारी या शाकाहारी मुद्दा नहीं है. मुद्दा है कुल मिलाकर
सर्वश्रेष्ठ उदाहरण का. भूमि पर विचरण करने वाले पशु-पक्षियों में शेर को सर्वश्रेष्ठ माना जाता है... मांसाहार उसकी भगवान की दी हुई प्रकृति है.... अपनी प्रकृति को निभा कर वो अपने धर्म का पालन कर रहा है.. अगर वो मांस नहीं खाएगा तो मर जाएगा. उसी प्रकार मगरमच्छ और गरुड़ कि तुलना की गयी है जल व नभ के अन्य जीवों से. इनमे से कोई भी प्रवृत्ति के तौर पर कत्ले-आम नहीं करता. मांस खाना इनका धर्म है और अपने धर्म का पालन करने वाला हर प्राणी श्रेष्ठ है.... ये तीनों अन्य गुणों को लेकर तुलना के लिए श्रेष्ठतर माने गए हैं... अपने धर्म के पालन के लिए तो कृष्ण ने अर्जुन को मानव-वध के लिए तैयार कर दिया फिर शेर तो बेचारा पेट भरने के लिए हिरन का शिकार करता है....
18 July 2011
I fully agree with contention that in early days even Hindus were non-veg. My understanding is that Hindu society had been very liberal in the past and eating meat was no taboo. Veg or non-veg food had nothing to do with one’s religion. It only defined one’s degree of spiritualism. For kshatriyas it was ‘the’ lifestyle untill an individual shunned meat due to his personal prefences or spiritual advancement.
But here I want to highlight a few things about Ram-Sita-Mrig episode. As per Maharishi Valmiki’s version, and that is the original one, Sita spots this Golden Deer first and then calls the brothers. On seeing the deer Lakshman warns them that it doesn’t look like a natural creature and that he suspects it to be ‘Maarichi’. But getting attracted, Sita asks Shri Ram to ‘capture’ the dear and bring it to their cottage as a ‘plaything’. She says they have many dears and bucks but none like this one. Sita further tells them that when they return to their kingdom after vanwas, this deer will be a masterpiece in palace chambers. So far she is just requesting Shri Ram to capture the Mrig alive. Not to hunt it and kill it for its meat, she is asking him to capture the deer so that she can keep it and play with it.
Later on, probably on suspecting it to be ‘Maarichi’ as warned by Lakshman, she says that if for any reason this deer is not captured and gets killed, then she would like to use its skin for her aasan.
Thus I feel though it is very likely that Hindus did eat meat during Ramayan and Mahabharat’s time yet it is slightly out of context to quote Ram-Sita-Maarichi episode as a point in support of eating meat during that period.
20 July 2011
It is right that Sitaji the epitome of womenhood in India fell to the lure of beautiful body of deer. And this dichotomy is very beautifully highlighted by Maharshi Valmiki himself and that too through Sitaji’s
own words. Verse 21 of Aranya Kand reads:
कामवृत्तम् इदम् रौद्रम् स्त्रीणाम् असदृशम् मतम् |
वपुषा तु अस्य सत्त्वस्य विस्मयो जनितो मम || ३-४३-२१
Translation of this Verse goes like:
"Tradition says that this sort of unruly self-seeking is unbefitting of women, yet that deer's beautiful body is inducing curiosity in me." Sita said so to Rama and remained waiting for his reply.
Call them God or superhumans yet there are a number of episodes in the beautiful poetic work ‘Ramayan’ which shows Ram, Sita and Lakshman were as human as others. They had all the feelings of love, passion, anger and grief etc... Only their response to those feelings was different. And you will agree that response to a feeling, to a particular situation is what separates Gods from Human beings.
In light of above, with due respect, I feel you are being a little too harsh in selection of your words for Sitaji in your last comment.
21 July 2011
ek achchha sawal."jeet kiski hui... satya ki ya shakti ki?'.....
jab mein sochne laga to mein satya ko shakti se alag nahin kar paya. Mera maana hai ki sachchai ki takat shuru mein chahe kam bhi lage dheere dheere badhti jaati hai. Jaise jaise ladne wali takten aage badhti hain support ka polarization shuru ho jata hai aur sach ko support badhti jaati hai. Physical takat shuru mein kauravon ki jyada thi magar pandvon ki Shakti unki soojh boojh aur unke justified ‘stand’ ki vajah se badhti gayi aur ant mein jeet pandvon ki hui.
Sawal aaya hai ki kya pandvon ne jhooth aur chhal kapat ka sahara nahin liya? Here we have to analyze it very carefully. A very thin line separates ‘chhal’ in positive and negative sense. Deception and surprise are two very powerful weapons in war. War is not won on power/Shakti alone, there is a lot more to it. Had it been pure mathematics of Shakti then there would have been no war and an outcome would have been decided on the power of two warring forces. The one with extra troops would have been declared a winner on headcount alone without actual war. In actual war a physically weaker side can also win by a proper analysis of his own strengths and weaknesses and that of his opponent’s. One has to neutralise opponent’s strengths and exploit his weakness. It is all fare.
Now let’s see what are the strengths of two forces……. Bhishm, Drona, Karna, Duryodhan etc etc all had special powers ranging from invincibility ‘ichchha mrityu’ to special weapons ‘brahmaastra’ etc etc. What are the options with Pandavs. Bhishm Pitamah is attacking Pandav troops from behind the wall of ‘ichchha mrityu’ where he can chose the manner and time of his death. Surrender before the power of ‘ichchha mrityu’ and face certain decimation or to neutralise his advantage? Neutralise.. but how? How to neutralise special powers and knowledge and weapons of Guru Drona? How to neutralise the ‘vajra’ body of Duryodhan, the special ‘kavach’ of Karna etc?
I feel all the actions of Pandavs should be adjudged in the light of their respective advantages and disadvantage then only shall we be in a position to comment on their actions.
Incidentally a couple of years ago Mr. Gurcharan Das raised similar questions in his much acclaimed book ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’ where he commented on the incidents of Mahabharat. I did not agree with his interpretation of the great Epic and gave my views in my blog at http://rkbasatta.blogspot.com/2010/09/difficulty-of-being-good-is-it-really.html
I sincerely feel I am too little qualified to actually get the full import of the incidents of Mahabharat, but I can say with certainty that my little understanding of these incidents has helped me in taking decisions at some very crucial periods in my life.
25 May 2011
"Arjun ne nihatte Karn par baan kyon mara... kya ye maryada ka ullanghan nahin tha?"
एक बहुत ही साधारण पर टेढा सवाल किया है....
अर्जुन ने कर्ण की हत्या कहीं लड़ाई के नियमों का उल्लंघन कर तो नहीं की? मैं इस बारे में जो समझता हूँ वो ये है की हमारा ये basic presumption ही ठीक नहीं है कि अर्जुन ने निहत्थे कर्ण पर वार किया. अगर अर्जुन जैसा महारथी किसी भी निहत्थे पर वार करता है तो फिर वो सरासर गलत है और कोई भी सफाई नहीं दी जा सकती. लेकिन इस episode में, बल्कि किसी भी युद्ध में यह निश्चित करना बहुत जरूरी है कि निहत्था मानने के लिए किस वक्त कि स्थिति को देखा जाए.... जिस वक्त युद्ध शुरू हुआ या जिस वक्त युद्ध खत्म हुआ. मेरा मानना है कि यह स्थिति युद्ध शुरू होने के वक्त कि मानी जाती है न कि मध्य या अंत की. युद्ध शुरू होने के बाद हाथ से हथियार गिरना या टूटना या खत्म हो जाना बेमाने है. बल्कि अच्छा योद्धा एक रणनीति के तहत अपने प्रतिद्वंद्वी के हथियारों को तोडेगा या खत्म करेगा या और तरह से बेकार करेगा और फिर उस पर काबू करेगा.
युद्ध शुरू होने के बाद हथियारों कि पूर्ती, या मरम्मत वगैरह के लिए कोई टाइम आउट नहीं मिलता. युद्ध शुरू होने के उपरांत योद्धा के पास कुछ ही विकल्प बचते हैं जैसे:
(१) युद्ध में दुश्मन पर काबू कर अपनी जीत निश्चित करे
(२) लड़ते लड़ते वीरगति को प्राप्त हो
(३) कमजोर पड़ने पर हथियार डाल दे और जान सलामती निश्चित करे
(४) मैदान-ए-जंग से भाग खड़ा हो और जान बचाए.
लड़ाई के बीच में अगर निहत्था होने पर दुश्मन वार नहीं कर सकता होता तो कोई सिपाही युद्ध में मारा नहीं जाता. जब भी वह कमजोर पड़ता, अपने हथियार छोड़ देता और युद्ध भूमि से बिना किसी डर के टहलता हुआ निकल जाता.
पर नहीं नियम ऐसा नहीं होता. युद्ध शुरू होने के बाद योद्धा या तो जीते या हारे. हारे तो या तो हथियार डाल दे और गिरफ़्तारी दे या लड़ते लड़ते जान देदे. और या फिर मैदान से भाग जाये और कायर कहलाये. कर्ण और अर्जुन के बीच क्या हुआ. लड़ाई शुरू होने के वक्त दोनों हथियारों से लैस थे और दोनों ने युद्ध कि मर्यादा में रहते हुए लड़ाई लड़ी. कर्ण घिरना शुरू हुआ... घोड़े थक गए... रथ का पहिया फँस गया... कर्ण नीचे उतर कर खुद पहिया निकालने लगा... लेकिन इस वक्त क्या ये कोई टाइम आउट था? क्या कर्ण जीत गया था? क्या कर्ण ने हथियार दाल दिए थे? क्या उस वक्त उसने लड़ना बंद कर दिया था और गिरफ्तार किया जा सकता था? नहीं.. इसमें से कुछ भी नहीं था... न तो वो उस वक्त तक जीता था और न ही उसने हथियार डाले थे .
और अर्जुन कि हालत क्या थी? कर्ण भारी पड़ रहा था और तगड़ा मुकाबला कर रहा था... फिर उसका पहिया फंसा और वो खुद रथ से उतर गया... क्यों? क्या अर्जुन उसे मारने से रुकता कि उस वक्त उसने हथियार नहीं पकड़ा था...? तो क्या उसे छोड़ देना चाहिए था? ये एक योद्धा कि शान के खिलाफ होता... उसे गिरफ्तार कर लेता? ये भी योद्धा के लिए शर्मनाक बात होती और न ही कर्ण ऐसा करने देता... युद्ध अपनी ताकत और अपनी कमजोरी के बीच मिलने वाले मौकों से ही जीते जाते हैं... सो उन हालात में अर्जुन का कर्ण पर वार करना ही उसका असली धर्म पालन था...
हाँ हमेशा कि तरह से ही इस बार भी अर्जुन संशय की स्थिति में था. उसे समझ नहीं आ रहा था कि वार करे या न करे. यही महाभारत कि खूबसूरती है. हर बार एक दोराहे पर लाती है और फिर सही और गलत के बीच चुनने के लिए बोलती है. श्री कृष्ण ऐसे समय में ही सही और गलत में भेद उजागर करते हैं.......
इस तरह से मेरी नजर में अर्जुन द्वारा कर्ण वध में कोई गलत बात नहीं है. ये तो सही और गलत के बीच भेद करने की एक बात है.
14 July 2011
"कौरवो और पांडवो में कौन ज्यादा छलिया व कपटी था?"
ज्यादा टेढा सवाल खड़ा कर दिया है. खैर ये तो हम सभी जानते हैं कि श्री कृष्ण सबसे बड़े छलिया थे. तो मैं मानता हूँ कि ये एक बहुत बड़ी विडम्बना होती अगर छल में पांडवों से कोई आगे निकल जाता. पर हाँ मामा शकुनी के शागिर्द, कौरव, कपट से भरे थे और पांडव इस क्षेत्र में दूर दूर तक भी मुकाबले में नहीं थे.
15 July 2011
Mahabharat ke liye kaun jimmewar hai? Shakuni, Draupadi ya Duryodhan?
Confusion तो सच में बहुत बड़ा है. पर मेरा मानना है कि महाभारत एक ऐसा महान ग्रन्थ है कि जिसमे characters की कमी नहीं है और उनकी सबकी अपनी एक जगह है. द्रौपदी, दुर्योधन, शकुनी, ध्रतराष्ट्र यहाँ तक कि भीष्म भी अकेले में बहुत छोटे पड़ जाते हैं पूरे महाभारत कि जिम्मेवारी लेने के लिए. जो सब कुछ हुआ उसमे इन सबका role था मगर किसी एक को जिम्मेवार ठहराना जहाँ उस के role को बढ़ा चढा कर आंकना होगा वहीँ वो बाकी औरों के महत्व को नज़रंदाज़ करने जैसा होगा.
15 July 2011
"तो कौन है फिर जिम्मेवार..??"
अकेले 'उस' को भी जिम्मेवार ठहराना ठीक नहीं...... हा हा हा ... उसकी तो सारी लीला है ही पर छोटी लीला और सबकी भी है....
15 July 2011
"ये जो गीता का उपदेश है ... ये कितने समय तक चला था भगवान और अर्जुन जी के बीच में?"
700 mein saare shloka Shri Krishna aur Arjun ke sanvaad nahin hain... is mein Sanjay aur Dhritrashtra ki baaten bhi hain. Arjun ya Shri Krishna to pahle adhyay mein aadhe ke bhi baad hi aate hain..... aur us samay doosri fauzen kya kar rahi hongi?.... wait... fauzen aamne saamne lag gayi thin.. Bhishm ne shankh bajaya... Shri Krishna ne 'Panchajanya' bajaya, even Arjun ne bhi shankh baja diya tha... par jab Shri Krishna rath ko lekar donon senaon ke beech aa gaye to dono senapati ruk gaye aur yuddh shuru nahin hua... lekin fall-in ho chuke the.. line-tod nahin kar sakte the..... hahaha...... kuchh aur karne nahin jaa sakte the.... haan agar 'Shankh' tab tak nahin baje hote to kuchh aur karne jaa sakte the.. us waqt to bas Shri Krishna ke beech se hatne ka intezar hi karte rahe.....
17 July 2011
Dowry--- the issue keeps on coming in debates and discussions and we always find a lot many of us publically saying no to dowry. Yet I have found that equally good number of us are a little uncomfortable with the pledge. And I must confess I find it a little uncomfortable to take such a pledge. Frankly speaking if someone tells me that I should not give anything in marriage of my daughter, I’m afraid I might not agree. I can’t imagine marrying off my dear daughter and not giving her anything in marriage. She would be starting a new phase in her life and nothing should prevent me from giving her gifts as per my capability and affection for her. But if my would-be son-in-law has taken a public pledge not to accept anything in marriage then what do I do? I strongly feel we have to reconcile the two situations. One man’s gift could be other man’s dowry. We need to clearly differentiate between the two….. a ‘voluntary gift’ within one’s capabilities and a ‘compulsive dowry’ under pressure, either from the groom’s side or from own relatives.Dahej I feel is a very pious word if taken in the right spirit. It is something given by a caring father to a daughter or by a loving brother to a sister on her marriage. However if any such exchange is under compulsion then it is not Dahej. Under pressure it is extortion and its perpetrators be tried and prosecuted accordingly.Sometime back there was a heated debate on the subject in Sheel Bhai’s blog. I had posted a comment there. Since the readers in this group are different, I am posting extracts from those comments below:“This menace of dowry has made many a lives miserable. To carry the debate further I am mentioning here what the law says on this issue:THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 defines Dowry as:‘any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage.The act makes an exception as below:Nothing above shall apply to: presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride or bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf) and such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.’Thus it can be seen that the law also makes a distinction between the dowry under demand and the presents given to a beti by her father or to a bahen by her brother or other members of her family. The law does not prevent exchange of items as far as the same are of a customary nature and within the financial status of the person by whom presents are given.Thus all gifts and presents given in marriage are not bad. And in view of the financial status, an item could be dowry in one case but a normal gift in another. We should not feel apologetic about the customary items received by a couple in marriage. But yes the line is very thin and we have to understand the spirit behind it.I have highlighted this legal aspect here as I felt that without proper understanding of the legal aspect we would not be able to carry out the required reforms. How can you tell a father not to give anything to his daughter? But you can always motivate one not to give, or demand, anything which comes anywhere close to dowry ie which is under compulsion or beyond one’s capabilities or simply a shameful display of wealth without any sense. While I very strongly oppose giving anything in marriage on demand, or under compulsion and pressure, or beyond one’s financial capability or merely as a show-off, I whole heartedly support voluntary exchange of gifts in marriage, as it shows care and affection towards the bride, towards a bitiya, towards a sister. I gave her agift on her birthday, on her going to school, on her successful project in school… why shouldn’t I give one on her marriage?Another reason why I have mentioned about this legal aspect is the need to educate and counter the forces which continue to support such evil for their own personal interests. And to justify their illegal demands in marriage they compare the same with justified gifts received by others in their marriage. They would oppose reformist attempts by any means. Many a times they would say something on your face but then comment differently behind your back.”I had made this comment last year and I stand by it. I request you all to give it a thought and exchange your ideas on the subject so that we can help our youth take a well-considered stand on the issue which she/he feels by heart rather than committing herself/himself on sentiments and abstract ideas without any convictions and later find it difficult to support one’s own ideas. Thanks.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/gurjarpratihars/permalink/199618846742564/
I fully agree with 90% of what have been written but this 90% belongs to just 10% of satya Sai Baba's life. I have never been a fan or follower of satya Sai Baba but still I admire what he has done for the masses. Apart from water, health, electricity etc it includes giving them 'faith'.. a firm believe in a god. And you'll agree faith is a great healer. I look at his numerous magical skills otherwise. In our childhood our parents played lot of tricks on us and later we played those 'magical' tricks on our children and made small balls, coins, pens etc vanish in thin here. We did it not to be-fool our kids but to either amuse them or to lead them to something better. And btw 'rebirth' is yet to be disapproved by science. Regards..
25 April 2011
The issue is.. many more have wealthier trusts. The important thing is what are they doing with that. And well proclaiming himself as GODMAN is part of his shady 10 % I mentioned earlier. Some of his followers are well educated and respected personalities, thus I doubt if education has much to do with it. But lets spread education so that at least some of the superstitions are taken care of.
25 April 2011
Let's not miss wood for the trees. His past is shady, his activities smack of frauds, murders and other crimes. But, may be at a very late stage though, he filled a vacuum in spiritual aspirations of his followers. I grade him higher than many more with similar pasts or presents, Pawar for one, who have equal or more money but no philanthropy. Bill Gates after duping crores by his restrictive trade practices donates a fraction of his wealth and is lauded. Lets give devil his due. At least on his last journey. Amen
26 April 2011
There are two issues here. Aadhunikta and social values.
Aadhunikta is just being in sync with today. Sending emails and SMS to announce birth of your child instead of sending letters by post, using computers in place of type writers, driving cars ipo bail-gaadi, using plates ipo pattals, using piped gas ipo gobar ke uple etc is being modern. These are aadhunik cheezen. Use them and be contemporary or don’t use them and be out of sync with today’s world.
And social values are Kaal-Desh specific. One social value may not be relevant at a different place at the same time or at the same place at different times. And in society one may choose to be one with social values or at confrontation with the same.
As far as kissing one’s wife in public is concerned I feel it has got nothing to do with modernity or aadhunikta. It is more a matter of social values. Some societies have adopted it in their values as neatly highlighted by Sachinji others have not. Today our society does not permit it. One has to stop somewhere. From not even walking together in public to just moving together to holding hands in public to kissing in public to… what next…. Members of the society set their limits. I love my wife… I need not make it a matter of public display… yet I am ready to kiss her in public.. Is my samaj ready to accept it? Are you ready?
25 April 2011
I feel modernity is just a change or departure from recent past. It is comparative by means of time and progress not necessarily by means of thoughts. I consider it different from open-ness of
mind. Do we mean that the society has been most open and forward looking today than it was 2 years ago, 200 years ago or 2000 years ago. I refuse to accept that society as depicted in Shakuntalam, in Ramayan and Mahabharat, in various other books of past was comparatively narrow minded than it is today.I feel it was as open or perhaps more open to new ideas then than it is now. Being traditional ie not being modern does not necessarily mean being less open-minded. Bhai I would still walk a mile to eat a chulhe ki roti and I can vouch for it some of them living in far flung villages away from electricity and cell phones are more open minded in their approach than most of us living in our so called modern cities.
25 April 2011
A suggestion in facebook by a member:
"...... on medical check-up of the boy and girl before their marriage, specially in context of possibility of transfer of genes. If medical check-up be done before marriage, the possibility of Thalassemia, Haemophilia, Celiac or Hemoglobinopathy will be known to us. Henceforth, the prevention can be done.Aids and other hereditary diseases can be prevented by just a simple blood test of the couple before their marriage. After a certain period of time it becomes impossible to cure hereditary diseases. So its better to avoid marriage of a couple who have presence of a same gene. Many problems can be avoided by just checking the RH factor of the couple. The children of the couple where girl is RH negative and boy is RH positive, are found with big ailments.
The only solution to prevent /stop diseases like Thalassemia is medical check-up of the couple before their marriage. Actually, there are 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes in one body. If one gene is defected/abnormal, then the other genes of the couple cover this problem. This gene is called as regressive and the patient is called as silent carrier. If both the husband and wife are silent cariers, there is a 25% possibility of Thalassemia in their child.
We can avoid such problems/diseases by medical check-up of the couple before marriage. Hereditary problems are leading to a long list of diabetic and cancer patients today. Doctors believe, if the couple have any gene of such hereditary diseases, there is a great possibility of their children being born patients."
A thought provoking issue. Generally one can see that though we all agree on the importance of such a test the point of contention is -how to go about it. Some of our brothers & sisters have raised some very reasonable issues from ethics to social values....... I just discussed the issue with a Medical Officer and he has informed that this genetic disorder is permanent. Like a blood group it also remains the same throughout one's life.... And here lies the solution. One can get his or her children tested at any stage, even when they are in school years before any talk of their marriage. And subsequently at later stage we can match this report just like we match the gotra at initial stage itself before further talks between two families. I think it will address all embarrassments and other ethical issues. Regards....
24 April 2011
I don’t see any marriage without an arrangement. Two strangers meeting by the road side do not get married instantly. Either it is arranged by the families of the two by checking various compatibility factors or is arranged by just the two of them on a single factor of LOVE between the two. As I see it both are two different versions of arranged marriages. One arranged by experts and other by novices.
Both can succeed or fail. But a prototype developed by experts has greater probability of succeeding over the one developed by amateurs, I suppose.
24 April 2011
