Friday, August 10, 2012

Janmashtmi


And what a better day to talk about the great work Srimad Bhagwadgita.
And from Srimad Bhagwadgita lets talk about its most famous shloka:

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोस्त्वकर्मणि॥
— भगवद्गीता २-४७

karmaṇyevādhikāraste mā phaleṣu kadacana|
mā karmaphalaheturbhūrmā te saṅgostvakarmaṇi|| 2-47

It is one of my favourite quotes. Its most common translation is “karma kiye ja phal ki ichchha mat kar re insan….”. The question that comes to mind is, “is it really important, rather possible to work without thinking about the results or the consequences thereof?” What is the motivation to work then? Well like almost all of Srimad Bhagwadgita’s shlokas this one also is not a mere two liner. It is a complete book in itself. A thesis can be written on this shloka itself. Its import is very deep. Swami Ranganathananda of Advaita Ashram has translated the shloka in English as, “Your right is to work only; but never to the fruits thereof. May you not be motivated by the fruits of actions; nor let your attachment be towards inaction… akarmani…”

It has four catch words here. Work, Fruit, Motive and Inaction. What this shloka infact says is, or what I understand of it is-- going backwards through the shloka—you should not be attracted towards, or be interested in inaction… you must act as per your duty, as per your religious beliefs, as per your dharma, as per your position. You must act. There should not be inaction.

Next it says is—or going backwards it says—a right to the fruits of action should not be your motivation to work. And this is very important. We should work with our best understanding of our rights and duties but we should not be motivated by the fruits of this work alone. We may actually not have the full understanding as to which work will ultimately produce what type of fruit. The final fruit may or may not belong to the exact type of work executed by us. Thus making that fruits the basis of our work is not always practical and is fraught with danger. Thus apart from spiritual aspect this practical aspect is also one of the reasons why we should not be motivated by the fruits.

Next it says is that your right is to work only and not to its fruits. Since we cannot actually decide the real ‘fruit’ of our work we shall not ask for it by right. Our exact selection of fruit might or might not be as our work. Moreover the word right here is more of a ‘right to choose’ than a ‘right to claim’. We can exert our rights, our powers, our discretion to choose our work and not the fruits thereof. Fruits shall follow automatically based on our work. We shall deliberate on the type of work we can undertake, the right and wrongs involved, our duty, our position and all that. We shall decide the work-exert our right to choose the work and then do it. The fruits will follow. We cannot exert our right to fruit anymore. We can not chose the fruit now. We can change the character and effect of this fruit, this result, subsequently by our other action but we can not chose our fruit here. We have no right to chose a particular fruit with or without doing a work. We do the work or don't do it... or do it badly, the result, the fruit shall follow. Having done the work now we can't stop the fruit. But one thing is sure, one or many works together may result in many or one fruit but it will always be commensurate with the quality and quantity, or the character of our work. Satvik work- good fruit, Rajsik work- slightly less good and Tamsik work- or paap and you get worst type of fruit. May even be in the shape of some punishment. But as we had ourselves chosen the work, we should accept all the fruits happily. It is only as per our work and we had all the liberty to chose the quality of our work. We had to chose our discretion properly. A work may be sattvik for one and rajsik for another. Or the work may be rajsik for both but one in his wisdom may consider it as sattvik and the other as rajsik, or might even consider it as tamasik. The first one, as such, might chose in his discretion to undertake that work as saatvik but the other might not touch it thinking it to rajasik or tamasik. The result would still be as per rajasik only because the work basically is rajasik only and he mistook it as satvik.

So all that this shlok says is that you use your discretion to chose the type of work you should undertake. Not to do any work, or inaction is not a good option. So work.... and chose the type of work and then leave the results or the fruits to follow. Fruits will follow per your work. The basic character of that work should be your motivation not its result. Selection pf fruit in the advance may, at times, result in faulty selection or execution of work. And that will, in turn, result in a different type of fruit than anticipated. So in this case one will first waste his right to chose his work and then lose the fruit also which might not be as per his perception. Thus in plain simple words we must use all our authority, right, power and discretion in selecting the right work and then should wait for the results to follow, one may or may not recognise or relate the fruit or exact result to his respective work but one is bound to get the fruit as per his work committed now or sometime earlier in the past. The result could be effect of a single work or result of cumulative work.... but he has control over his work only and shall not try to control the result over which one doesn't have much control.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

facebook discussion: On Rebirth.


A good topic for discussion. Rebirth. The fact that a few religions don't believe in it whereas a few others believe shows that the answer is not that easy. It is not like 2+2 which can be proved beyond doubt for everyone to follow. It is slightly different.

It is a matter of indepth study and personal understanding. A study of old scriptures leaves no doubts about the concept of rebirth.

Though most of the individual instances of rebirth can be explained para-psychologically, and re-incarnation has not been conclusively proved by western science so far; yet no theory, or experiment or religion has disproved rebirth or re-incarnation.

Science has not been able to prove rebirth but logic shows there has to be something like re-incarnation to explain a whole lot of phenomenon in this world. Why this disparity? Why a child is born with a silver spoon and other on a heap of garbage as a destitute?
What happens to a sinner? Why should we do good? When will be the day of judgement?..... a lot of such questions are there which can not be satisfactorily answered without the concept of rebirth.

Thanks for bringing up the topic. It would be interesting to discuss the topic.

18 July 2012

Monday, May 28, 2012

facebook discussion: What is our real nationalism?

I feel it is all about sense of belongingness. A matter of one's identity. And it starts from our family itself. If we can love our family and feel proud of it then only can we understand and respect other families. In a match, contest or other comparison between two families we have to identify with our family and support it by all means. Same stands for our city. In yesterday's match between DD and CSK I had to feel one with my team DD, even in a crushing defeat in the hands of CSK. I might appreciate a player or two from CSK but can't support a team against DD.

So on and so forth until we reach the NATION. Here again being an Indian I can not dream of not feeling one with India. I might appreciate a thing or two about other nations but it has to be India on top for me. When I am true to myself, to my family, to my Country then only can I respect the feelings of others who are true to themselves, true to their family and true to their nation. It does not matter whether one is from New Delhi, Nowshera, New Castle or New York. One has to be committed to his respective country India, Pakistan, England or America in this case. I see no conflict upto this point. As an Indian I can not love Pakistan, England or America over my country and at the same time do not expect someone from these countries loving India over their own countries. All are true nationalists in the real form.

The problem starts if I love my family but instead of respecting my neighbour's family I HATE that family. That is bad. It would be bad if I start hating CSK and try to ensure their defeat in the match verses DD through sabotage, match-fixing or any other foul means. Similarly it would be bad if from the love for my country I conclude that now i have to hate all other nations and all those belonging to or supporting those 'other' nations. If for a moment I have this feeling it is bad. Then I am not being a principled, rationalist person. How can I assume that my nationalism is superior to my counterpart's from Pakistan, England or America. I must respect him and respect his nationalism as long as he is not working against my nation. Any supporter of Pakistan, England or America or any other country, or CSK for that matter, is welcome as long as he does not hate India or DD in this case. We can still be great friends, great admirers of each other even if we are from two different countries, or two different states or two different families. We just have to respect each other, respect each other's feelings, respect each other's loyalties and not hate each other's family, state or nation. There is a difference between 'not supporting' and 'hating'. I can not support Pakistan, England or America in a match against India but at the same time I should not hate these countries for any reason.

And this is our real nationalism. To respect Pakistan while being committed and loyal to India and conversely to respect India while remaining committed and loyal to Pakistan. If from nationalism one understands that it means annihilation of all other nationalities then he has not understood the concept of nationalism and such person is a real threat to humanity. For once he has 'annihilated' all other nations, he will turn to his province verses others and annihilate all other provinces. And then to his city, and finally to his family and will annihilate all other families. This is a defeatist mentality. It will destroy humanity. A true nationalist will understand and respect other's nationality and will love, not hate, others.

Unfortunately a few have not understood the concept of nationality in the real context and have adopted the destructive path of opposing and hating other nations. That has brought misery to real peace loving dwellers of subcontinent without their fault. All such misguided persons need to be resisted and guided to shun this hatred for other nations and nationalities. Therein lies the key to survival and prosperity of us all. Not only in this subcontinent, but in the world itself.
26 May 2012


As far as nationalism goes I strongly believe, from my personal experience as well, that two true nationalists, even from two different countries, will always like and respect each other. Only pseudo-nationalists fight with each other or harm others. In my short career I have had opportunity to interact with nationals of around a dozen different countries and I have found that more they loved their own countries more they were eager to know about other countries and more they seemed to be appreciative of other's culture.

Only a few die-hard types were unjustifiably critical of other nations and did not gel with others. But then these die-hards were always in a minority and they were also found using foul language about other institutions of their own country. These are what we call pseudo-nationalists. They just do not have clear concepts about nationalism.

True nationalist always seem to be saying that my mother is the best and your mother also is the best. As I can not abuse my mother I can not abuse your mother too. He respects other's sentiments also as he has himself experienced those feelings. Anyone saying bad words about other's mother/country has not really loved his own mother/country.
27 May 2012

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

fbd: क्या उपासना,तपस्या और भक्ति के रूप और क्रिया अलग अलग हैं?


मेरे विचार से किसी भी चीज़ में, व्यक्ति में, वस्तु में विश्वास रखना, भरोसा रखना भक्ति है. इसका पालन हम जिंदगी में सामान्य रहते हुए भी कर सकते हैं.
उपासना एक तरीका है जिसमे भक्ति है, श्रद्धा है उसके और समीप जाने का. उपासना प्रतिदिन कुछ समय के लिए हो सकती है. इसमें अपने आराध्य का ध्यान कर उसके और समीप जाने का प्रयास होता है. भक्ति और उपासना में फर्क ये है कि भक्ति में प्रेम है, समर्पण है, लगन है किन्तु कोई चाह नहीं है जबकि उपासना में अपने प्रिय को पाने कि चाह लेकर एक क्रिया करना है. भक्ति एक भाव है उपासना एक क्रिया है.
और तपस्या अपना उद्देश्य पूरा करने के लिए किया गया अथक प्रयास है. इसमें निरंतरता व कुछ शारीरिक श्रम, कष्ट निहित है. ये मात्र एक सिमित समय के लिए अपनी इच्छा पूरी होने तक के लिए किया गया एक अथक परिश्रम, एक प्रयास है. वो उद्देश्य पूरा होने पर या वो इच्छा पूरी होने पर तपस्या पूर्ण हो जाती है तथा और तपस्या की जरूरत नहीं रह जाती. ये किसी अच्छी भावना से भी हो सकती है और बुरी भावना से भी.
इन तीनों से मैं यही समझता हूँ.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

facebook discussion: '2011 Revision of the World Urbanisation Prospects Report’


संयुक्त राष्ट्र संघ की '2011 Revision of the World Urbanisation Prospects’ रिपोर्ट के अनुसार अगले चार दशकों में भारत कुल 497 million यानि तक़रीबन 50 करोड़ की आबादी शहरी आबादी में और जोड़ेगा. इसी दौरान चीन कुल 341 million यानि 34 करोड़ की आबादी शहरी आबादी में जोड़ेगा.
अगर ये रिपोर्ट सही निकलती है तो अगले 40 सालों में इसका असर भारत की प्रगति व अर्थव्यवस्था पर क्या पड़ सकता है? अच्छा या बुरा?
April 6 2012
I see two aspects here. One is increasing population and second is movement of people from villages to metros or other cities. And I feel this second aspect is more important. We must take steps to develop infrastructure in villages so that people continue to stay there are do not shift to cities. Ultimately we will have to develop our villages for a balanced growth and sooner we start it better it is.
April 8 2012


शिक्षा, चिकित्सा, परिवहन, मनोरंजन सब तरह से गाँव पिछड़ रहे हैं तभी जनता शहरों की और जाती है.
April 9 2012

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

facebook discussion: WHAT IS MOKSH (SALVATION) ? IS IT A REALITY OR A FARCE ?

मोक्ष का मतलब है छुटकारा, मुक्ति. इस जीवन चक्र से, जन्म और मृत्यु के फेरों से. जन्म और मृत्यु का ये सिलसिला अगर reality है तो फिर मोक्ष भी reality है.
18 March 2012

वैसे भाई भी अपनी जगह सही हैं कि इसे समझना इतना आसान नहीं है लेकिन फिर भी इक शुरुआत तो करनी ही होगी. चलिए यहीं से इस concept को समझने की इक शुरुआत करते हैं.
18 March 2012


भाई काफी हद तक सही हैं कि ब्राह्मणों ने वेदों के अच्छे उपदेशों को दूसरों तक जाने से रोका. असल में उन्होंने वेदों से अलग स्मृतियों और पुराणों के नाम से रचनाएँ लिखीं और उन्हें ही सच्चा ज्ञान कह कर लोगों को बरगलाना शुरू किया.
और दुर्भाग्यवश वे सफल भी हुए.
लेकिन मोक्ष, सिद्धि, renunciation, the highest perfect stage वगैरह के concept श्रीमद भगवद्गीता में भी हैं. ब्राह्मणों ने इन्हें बाद में गलत interpret किया और इन्हें प्राप्त करने के गलत तरीकों का प्रसार किया. स्मृतियों और पुराणों से हट कर अगर हम देखें तो बहुत कुछ सही जानकारी मिलती है.
25 March 2012


अगर हम आध्यात्मिक खोज को इक पढाई की तरह लें तो मोक्ष कह सकते हैं कि अध्यात्म की PhD है. अध्यात्म की पढाई का आखरी पड़ाव है. और इसी उपमा में कई और जवाब भी छिपे हैं. हम सब इस पढाई की अलग अलग स्टेज पर हैं. पहली दूसरी यानि प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा, माध्
यमिक, उच्चतर, graduation, post-graduation, PhD वगैरह वगैरह. और यही वजह है की मोक्ष की हमारी परिभाषा और समझ भी अलग अलग होती है. और हमारे जवाब भी अलग होते हैं. मसलन अब अगर भाई Dr से कोई पूछे PhD के बारे में तो उनका जवाब पहली कक्षा के बच्चे के लिए अलग होगा और छठी कक्षा के लिए अलग और इक graduation कर रहे छात्र के लिए अलग. सबके लिए इक जवाब नहीं हो सकता. ना ही सबको इक जैसा समझ आएगा.

वही बात मोक्ष के बारे में है. आध्यात्मिक अध्ययन के अपने स्तर के अनुरूप ही हम इस बात को समझ सकते हैं. हम में से अधिकतर प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा के स्तर पर हैं. कुछ माध्यमिक और उससे ऊपर तो विरले ही होंगे. और ऐसे में अगर कोई कहता है कि मैं मोक्ष नहीं चाहता तो इसमें आश्चर्य की बात नहीं है. पहली दूसरी कक्षा का विरला ही छात्र ये कह सकता है कि वो PhD करना चाहता है. अधिकतर तो PhD के विषय में उस वक्त कुछ नहीं कह सकते. और वैसे भी आपने अक्सर कईयों को कहते सुना होगा, बल्कि खुद भी कहा होगा कि बचपन कितना अच्छा था, हम बड़े नहीं होना चाहते.... हम भी अगर बच्चे होते..... यही बात अध्यात्म और मोक्ष की है. कहने को तो मोक्ष जीवन मरण के चक्कर से छुटकारा है पर पूरी तरह से इसे समझने के लिए पहले हमें अध्यात्म की प्रार्थमिक शिक्षा पूरी करनी होगी फिर माध्यमिक और फिर आगे. तभी हम इसे पूरी तरह समझ पायेंगे. और ये पोस्ट इस दिशा में इक अच्छा प्रयास है.
26 March 2012

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

facebook discussion: Insaan shadi kyon karta hai?

इसमें 'इंसान' को हम तीन कैटेगरी में बाँट सकते हैं.
पहली में वो हैं जिनकी शादी उनके माँ-बाप ने कर दी. उनके माँ-बाप व रिश्तेदारों का मानना होता है कि हमने भुगता है तो तुम भी भुगतो. उन्हें बुरा लगता है (jealous you know) अगर समाज में कोई बिना शादी किये खुशी से रहना चाहता है.
दूसरी कैटेगरी में हैं वो जिन्होंने खुद अपने होशो हवास में अपनी शादी की. ये वो हैं जो दूसरों के अनुभवों से नहीं सीखते हर अनुभव खुद ग्रहण करते हैं. साथ ही उन्होंने ये मुहावरा भी नहीं पढ़ा होता कि 'दूर के ढ़ोल सुहावने होते हैं'
और तीसरी कैटेगरी में वो हैं जो ता-उम्र शादी नहीं करते. तो उनके बारे में यही कहा जा सकता है कि उनकी आँखें बचपन में ही खुल गयीं थी. वो पिछले जन्म में जरूर महात्मा बुद्ध थे.
बुद्धं शरणं गच्छामी......
21 February 2012


Recently I came across two explanations on the subject. One is from a commentary on 'Hinduism' by Dr. S Radhakrishnan. I quote:
"Ethical obedience is also a pathway to salvation. Hinduism desires that one's life should be regulated by the c
onception of duties or debts which one has to discharge. The debts are fourfold: ...............
(And the third is) To our ancestors. We repay these debts by having good progeny. The Hindu social code does not ask us to impose an unnatural order on the world. We discover the intentions of nature in the constitution of men and women and it is our duty to act agreeably to them. Marriage is not merely of bodies but of minds. It makes us richer, more human, more truly living, and becomes the cause of greater love, deeper tenderness, more perfect understanding. It is an achievement which requires discipline."

Now that 'kyon karta hai' has been explained, lets move on to the second explanation. And that is 'Aadmi shaadi kab karta hai?' This I have received through SMS from one of my friends.

शादी कब होती है?

-जब टाइम खराब चल रहा हो, राहू, केतू और शनि की दशा खराब हो, आपका मंगल कमजोर हो और देवी देवता मनोरंजन के मूड में हों.......
13 March 2012