Sunday May 14, 2006
A friend put this idea in my head. He said that legends are created around heroes and heroes are winners. Each era requires a different set of abilities and ethics to make you a winner or hero.
Medha Patkar has been arrested yesterday, for standing up for the rehabilitation rights of the weak and voiceless, while criminals roam free and rule.
Rama tried many peace approaches before he waged a war on Ravana, killed him and freed his wife. He is hailed for his many virtues, but what worked with Ravana, was beating him in a war.
Sita was chaste and good, but she ended up killing herself, because some of her subjects suspected her fidelity and her husband had to respect their thoughts as a king. Did she win? She is held up as the highest standard of chastity today, because chastity of their wives is what Indian men would like to have. However, as a class, they are not above taking an interest in another man’s women (wife, sister, daughter or mother). I don’t know if Sita won or she was used after her death to beat other women into submission.
Who does the society look up to today? The wealthy and the powerful. because they seek the wealth and power needed to fulfil their material and social needs.
The middle class believes that the way to success is by acquiring degrees, getting jobs and keeping out of political matters. They think that keeping a low profile and staying non-controversial is a way to success. This is slowly beginning to change: because the legislative powers are a) taxing the middle class (salaried class) and b) reserving education and jobs for the lower classes, in an attempt to woo the lower classes and retain their legislative and administrative powers.
The lower class believes in unions, movie icon fan clubs and tough talking. They believe both in collective and in naked power. They also control the ‘vote’ ie the outcome of the general elections. They have a direct relationship with the legislative powers.
Anyone who applies the ethics of the Satya, Treta, or Dwapara yugas to the Kali Yuga is losing very badly. Speaking the truth, standing up for the underdog, doing the right thing, all lead to heavy personal costs and are expected to do so. Christ’s crucifixion is a very Kali yuga thing. In Telugu, people say “papam, manchi vaadu” which roughly translates to “poor fellow, he is good”.
I think the Kaliyuga ethics is self-serving, with or without the coating of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a way of disarming the opponent, by saying that you conform to a group welfare ethic, you keep some potential enemies at bay for sometime. It is the cheaper power tactic of deception.
Everyone knows that the tax money that the Govt. collects is misused. If the govt. labelled it as extortion money, for the protection provided from neighbouring countries, would middle classes pay? As long as tax money is purported to be used for social good, a fellow who does not pay his tax properly feels either that he has won or he feels guilty and scared. If it is labelled as extrtion money, then a non-payer feels heroic.
My friend thinks that the winners of this generation would be labelled as crooks by the hand-me-down ethics of previous eras. But they will be viewed as heroes by the generations that follow.
So what will happen to the ‘universal’ ethics of compassion to the suffering, generosity to those in need and ‘fair’ distribution of resources? Maybe it will boil down to your individual nature and have nothing to do with conceptions of right and wrong.
Selfless Competence Must Triumph over Selfish Mediocrity…
… yet it is most often the other way..
In every walk of life it is organised mediocrity and organised crime that seem to win. Is it that goodness and competence do not organise?
The good of all
I believe that the good of all is a right goal.
If people work for their own good, it will lead to individual conflicts of interest.
If people work for the good of their tribe, there are conflicts between tribes, greater destruction.
When people work for the good of humanity alone, we end up destroying our environment and other species. We destroy the ecology necessary for our own survival and harm ourselves in the long run.
Work for the good of all. When you do this you will encounter individuals and groups who are set against you, because they believe that their good lies against the good of all. They don’t realise that in the good of all lies their good. Or maybe they know that their “better” does not lie in the “good” of all. You have to either win over them in a conflict or win them over through persuasion.
You may fall in conflict and you may be crucified in persuasion. Your good may be sacrificed for the “better” of the selfish others, if you do nothing. Then you will die neither a hero nor a martyr but a victim.
Friday June 30, 2006 – 06:42pm (PST)
Fear, Ego, Pride, Power, Anger
Beyond my fear that I will lose is my anger that I did not get my way and beyond that is a powerful and proud ego, that seeks to dominate, control, create and destroy.
Beyond that I believe is my simple, delightful, playful self. This is what I want to identify with.
The concept of duty goes with free will and doership. Karma Yoga requires us to ‘do’ our duty and remember the Real Doer - thus recognising free will – both in recognising our duty and identification with the divine self.
It requires us to use our free will, to realize, that in fact, we do not have a free will. I must choose to think that it is not ‘I’ who thinks. I can refuse and be miserable or accept and be serene.
When I do this – ‘Thoughts Occur: ‘I’ do not think’.
Sunday June 11, 2006 – 02:57pm (PST) Edit | Delete | Comments: 0
Trikarana suddhi
Manasa, Vacha, Karmani.
Sita came out of the fire unscathed because she was pure in thought, word and deed.
What if she was pure in thought and deed, but in word, deceived her captor? Would Balanagamma have emerged from the fire intact?
What if she were only pure in deed, by firm self-control, but her mind had to be reined in?
Would the fire have killed her? See the death of Rajendar kumar in Sangam and other second heros in love triangle movies.
Crooks who are impure in thought, word and deed have a great material life.
Saints who are pure in all 3 have a great spiritual life.
Normal people who know their limits dont jump into fires.
The people who get burnt in the fire, are people who are pure in deed and have to fight their natures to be pure and good. They have neither this world nor the next. Only the knowledge that they tried and were misunderstood. And that they pay heavy penalties for thoughts that they don’t give in to., than actual villains.
Then they may give up their good deeds or being “good” in “deed.”
Or they gain victory over their minds and become total saints.
Monday August 7, 2006 – 09:21am (PST)
Chanakya and Gandhiji
Chanakya was always my hero, ever since I read his story in Amar Chitra Katha, when I was in primary school. When I was in Tata Unisys Ltd., I used to have his picture on my cubicle wall.
I bought the VCDs of the T.V. serial (by Prakash Dwivedi) and just completed watching all 47 episodes of it. It is a great series but somewhat rushed through in the last few episodes and too much focus on uneccessary characters and incidents towards the end. Almost as if the director or the direction had changed towards the end.
One similarity between the life of Chanakya and the life of Gandhi, is that they were very pure and they wanted nothing for themselves. Chanakya started like that.. Gandhiji progressively simplified and purified himself.
Another similarity is the love they had for their motherland and the way the dedicated their lives to the freedom of the country.
Where Chanakya was called Kautilya because of his application of politics to the cause., Gandhiji was called Mahatma because of his application of principles of ahimsa (non-violence) to the cause. Both were brilliant strategists and both were strong adherents to Satya(truth).
Also interesting in the story of Chanakya, were the great number of ministers who were on the side of truth but also on the side of the establishment led by a corrupt and bad king: Dhananand. They could not admit truth to the people and they could not confront the king. They were caught because they cared about the consequences of their actions would have to their own selves and to the established way of life (social order). They were willing to content themselves with microchanges and believed that people could be reformed.
Chanakya and Gandhiji wanted major fundamental changes. Chankaya wanted it from the beginning and Gandhiji progressively refined his goal. Chanakya found that he could not appeal to humanity, reason and decency in fundamentally corrupt, arrogant, powerful and selfish people. He decided that ”Kutila Raj Neethi” was the way to get rid of some of those people. He left many of the good administrators in charge even under the new administration.
Gandhiji appealed to the masses and asked them not to co-operate with the foreign, exploitative adminstration. And he asked the British to quit India. Gandhiji appealed to the appeal of principle.
Chanakya gave us Chandragupta, Gandhi gave us Nehru and Patel.
Both Chanakya and Gandhiji are my heroes and have always been. Because they knew how to reform society. They had the brilliance, the application, the dedication, the austerity and the solution.
Monday August 21, 2006 – 10:40pm (PST)
