<b>Peace Prizes and Pimping Pinkos</b>
<i>By: Veera Vaishnava</i>
Veera_vishnu@rediffmail.com

<i>“….No one calls a rape a complex gynecologic emergency. A rape is a rape, just as genocide is genocide. And both are crimes”

James Orbinski, President of Médecins sans Frontières International.</i>

All humanitarian actions and motivations born in any civil society have gained influence until they reach the political agenda as history as shown us. The main distinctions are that while humanitarian action and search for true peace takes place in the short term, for limited groups and for specific objectives and goals. This is both its strength and its limitation. The political agenda on the other hand is long term, which itself is the movement and reshaping of the societies. Humanitarian action is by definition universal. Humanitarian responsibility has no borders as identified in the nation-state paradigm. By contrast, the political knows borders, and when crisis occurs, political response will vary because historical relations balance of power, and the interests of one or the other nation. The time and space of the humanitarian are not those of the political. A true humanitarian or peace seeker thus has a vision that by definition must ignore political choices. However these days “humanitarianism and peace seeking” has become and industry and is used as a tool of war. Ideally the tools, tactics and techniques that are used in a war to secure peace, has turned on its head, and peace movements are being used to secure victory in a non conventional and asymmetric war. The objective of such war typically is the containment of an enemy or perceived enemy. This article tries to address how such goals are achieved by states and entities that are inimical to the idea of a healthy and strong India, by using “peace movements and activists” to curtail the development and subvert the identity of a nation-state.

<b>Asymmetric Information and Warfare</b>

Insurgency and counter-insurgency are asymmetric forms of non-traditional warfare. The terrorists/insurgents who are trained in Pakistan are fighting for the most effect with resources supplied by Pakistan to wrest Kashmir and to bleed India in the hopes of bringing India down to its knees. The Indians/counter-insurgents on the other hand are fighting for the hearts and minds of the population. Thus the terrorist establishment uses tactical, strategic techniques as well as involve in consolidating any gains accrued from tactical and strategic operations. For such consolidation, the <b><i>existing civil society’s support structure is an absolute necessity</i></b>. In case of India, the consolidation aspect unfolds in two ways: blunting <b>Hindu revival (to minimize the consequences of Islamism in the public consciousness and awareness of Indians), </b>and use of <b>Peace movements </b>to benumb any pro-active and decisive reaction of India towards Pakistan and terrorists. There are other nations that are also involved who would like to see India tied down forever in this imbroglio but that is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

<b>Peace Movements and Prizes</b>

In an effort to recognize, appreciate and award such humanitarian and peace seeking activities of such selflessness and elevated people, peace prizes are normally thought to be awarded. However the peace prizes and political agendas cannot be separated, as they were never intended to be separated. With regard to the Peace Prize, Nobel defined this as having "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The most difficult stipulation to live up to has undoubtedly been "in the preceding year." This is now understood to indicate the most recent contributions in the <b>various cultural fields </b>to which the will refers. The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have <b>political effects</b>. [1] In other words, there is a complete absence of any objective analysis of achievements, but only vagueness in identifying the potential winner.

The humanitarian aid worker is the human face seen by the individual victim of war, the manifestation of respects for that individual's human dignity, and thereby the embodiment of the best hope of peace and reconciliation. This gets to the roots of the absolutely fundamental prerequisites for peace. The decision to award the first Peace Prize for humanitarian work was one of the most important decisions in the history of the Peace Prize. Today, "humanitarian intervention" (with or without military support) is one of the most important factors in international peace work.)

<b>Peace Prizes and Political Agendas</b>

The Nobel Peace Prize is viewed by many as a prestigious award, only given to those who greatly improved mankind through invention or good work. It perhaps, at one time, was this. But it is high time to call the Nobel Peace Prize or any other such prize for what it is today: a tactic and a tool used for advancing political agendas. Invariably, Nobel Peace Prized censures had earned near-universal condemnation, often making the message of the award a forceful rebuke from the world community.
• Yasser Arafat, who is the leader of a country that sends suicide bombers into civilian areas of Israel. There is no merit in this case, but an agenda. The agenda is to deaden any action that Israel might take to protect its citizens, and the poster child is the apostle of peace: Yasser Arafat.
• Shirin Ebadi, is no different. It is to affirm the political agenda she represents. Shirin Ebadi is an advocate of reform, not rebellion, per the committee. It was also said that Ebadi got the award for her work with woman and children’s rights. Iran used this to the hilt. After winning the Nobel Prize, Ebadi immediately began to plead for peace. The Ayatollah made further statements against US attack in Iran after this woman was recognized as a Nobel Peace Prize award winner. Ebadi is the regime’s poster girl as she opposes regime change in Iran.
• Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was given the award in 1983 as an affront to the Polish Communists and the Soviet Union, thus sending a clear political signal to erstwhile U.S.S.R.
• Desmond Tutu took home the prize, sending a message of condemnation to the South African apartheid government.
• Dalai Lama was chosen for the award, to send clear reference to the iron fist the Communist Chinese applied in ruling occupied Tibet. This gesture sent a message to repressive, dictatorial regimes.
• Sometimes the committee has been less subtle in their approach, awarding the prize to open members of the radical Left. The 1973 prize for Communist North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho.
• In 1992 when the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Guatemala's Rigoberta Menchu, an ardent Marxist and supporter of the Communist Sandanistas.
• Japanese experience with the latest peace prize fraud [2]

Following the footsteps of Nobel Peace prize number of other peace prizes sprang up in the recent times including Asian equivalent of Nobel Peace Prize, Ramon Magsaysay Award. In April 1957, the Ramon Magsaysay Award was established by the trustees of the <b>Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF)</b> based in New York City. The vision of Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation states [3]

“ With strong international presence and support, the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation continues to hold up persons and organizations as exemplars of selfless leadership, whose lives and work make Asia truly a better place by:

1. Addressing issues of human development across boundaries of culture, politics and religion with courage and creativity…..”

Let us briefly look at the winners of this precious and coveted peace prize who have been active in politics, and some quotes from the citations. The author assumes readers’ knowledge about the notoriety the following winners have gained in India, and laurels Internationally, by constantly and consistently putting India on the back pedal and in promoting “hindutva” as a fascist concept and Hinduism as a backward religion: in other words they are secular angels trying to save the soul of India.

• Admiral Ramdas – 2004 – <i>“…recognizes their reaching across a hostile border to nurture a citizen-based consensus for peace between India and Pakistan.”</i>
• James Michael Lyngdoh – 2003 <i>“…best hope of secular democracy in strife-torn India.”</i>
• Sandeep Pandey - 2002
• Mother Teresa – 1962 – <i>“…recognizes her merciful cognizance of the abject poor of a foreign land, in whose service she has led a new congregation.”</i>

The vagueness in the citations is amazingly remarkable. Vagueness is a characteristic of language. It is different from ambiguity in the sense, that ambiguity has more than one meaning where as vagueness is a characteristic of a single meaning with borderline cases. The citations above have the appearance of soundness yet heavily depends upon vagueness in its terms. It is highly subjective as any differentiation and distinction is based on qualitative scales, and who gets to set those standards. It is thus no strange coincidence that the political agendas – agenda set forth by such prizes, and those of individuals who aspire for such awards – match. The complementary endeavor to gain prominence and recognition is by slandering those who really have neither political agendas nor they care for any peace prizes and photo ops such as India Development Relief Fund (IDRF). The slander unleashed by the leftists of India, and again by no strange coincidence, winners of such peace prizes, was phenomenal and unprecedented. The rebuttal of such attacks by misguided and self-promoting ideologues, and in this case, on IDRF, is available here for any open minded and rational individual(s) [4].

In the Indian context, another unsaid prerequisite, to be considered for such awards, one has to be a vigorous, rabid anti-Hindu. Consider the case of Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner in Economics. An instant celebrity all over the world turns his words and economic wisdom to berating and belittling India’s achievements. He constantly chides India for its Hindu heritage and reminds Indians to shun Hindu way of life to achieve any progress comparable to developed countries. No intellectual in India dares to challenge an Economist’s expertise in social, historical and cultural issues, especially of an avowed socialist. It cannot be just an opinion, as these Intellectuals are aware of the consequences and repercussions of their acts and sayings. Nothing can be accidental in their careful calibration in the well choreographed dance to the Peace Prize Galas and shoulder rubbing events.

Herein lies the rub, a socialist in the west might be a threat to the free market system in the west, but a brown socialist with an assumed or awarded secular label is touted as an intellectual, progressive, and a liberal as a foot soldier takes up the cudgels in keeping the gap between developing and developed worlds intact if not widen it.

These prizes, true to their objectives in an asymmetric warfare, are also used to contain a country’s growth and development - Narmada Bachao Andolan’s Medha Patkar springs to mind immediately. Other awards that bear upon the prerequisite of “nobel peace prize” – cultural affairs – is Booker prize. The winner, Arundhati Roy who happens to berate India’s nuclear establishment while receiving grants, prizes and accolades from Nuclear Weapon States. Richard Crasta has a completely different view point and a recipe which is absolutely hilarious and right on target, on how to win such prizes [5].

<b>Conclusion</b>

All these peace prizes have one thing in common, a creeping politicization that exposes the deeper political agenda of these committees -the agenda of the far Left, peaceniks and anti-capitalists in their own deluded visions of a global community’s Utopia. The vision is an ardent pacifism, an abject and unilateral surrender, in the face of hostile elements, and making a virtue out of a vice. These are just “useful idiots” in the global play of geo-politics, prostituting themselves with their self promoting agenda, carrying around their whopping egos, while willingly becoming pawns of a very short sighted vision.
If the “Peace” Prize committee were genuinely interested in peace, they would condemn an oppressive military government that kills its own people, trains terrorists and send them over to slaughter hapless people across the border. If peace prize seekers are genuinely interested in cultural exploits that will confer upon them peace prizes, they should strive to work for the preservation of the indigenous culture by promoting them and/or reforming them, but not supplanting them.

But they only condemn “violent wars” when it is innocent people rising to their self defense or when India defends itself. They condemn Hindus when Hindus protect themselves and refuse to be victimized and butchered. The only condemn humanitarian organizations such as IDRF that stay away from politics and get involved in genuine, and meaningful of human service.

Finally, who are the ones to decide the awarding and rewarding of peace prizes? The ones who run the institutions, and the ones with financial and political influence, definitely the ones who have a specific and clear political agenda. Are there any worthy Peace Prize winners? Yes, Doctors without Borders!, and IDRF, but not activists who specialize and experiment in Social Engineering.

For these Peace Prizes to reclaim their original purpose and to be seen by all humanity with awe and respect, they much clamor for, the intellectual incest promotion should stop and the pinkos ought be put out of their pimping business.

Post 9/11, every Terrorism incident has finger prints of Pakistan all over it, and so do on our Peace activists, when it comes to supporting and rationalizing “Jihad” in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Should there be any doubts in the minds of the readers, please check the winners’ travel itinerary for peace promoting vists, lectures and socializing events attended across the border. It then begs the next question - <b>Are they Peace activists or Terrorists’ enablers?</b>

<b>References</b>

1. The Nobel Peace Prize: From Peace Negotiations to Human Rights http://www.nobel.se/peace/articles/sejersted/
2. The Okinawa Peace Prize Fraud: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=44&ItemID=2606
3. http://www.rmaf.org.ph/
4. Narayanan’s Rebuttal – http://letindiadevelop.org/news/VoiceOfA...72003.html
4. Richard Crasta, “Impressing the Whites”, “Roy, Rushdie and Seth: Spokespersons, Invisible Man Books.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><b>Clash of Civilizations: A Hindu Response</b></span>
By Prof Ramesh Rao

In his controversial 1993 essay in <i>Foreign Affairs</i>, Samuel Huntington wrote that the fundamental source of conflict in the modern world would not be driven by economic factors but by ideological factors, and that the “dominating source of conflict will be cultural”. He asserted that nation states would remain “the most powerful actors in world affairs”, but that “the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations”.

He argued that civilization identity would be shaped by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations – Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African. The causes for the conflict, he said would be because, “differences among civilizations” are both real and basic, and that “civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition and, most important, religion”. He argued that the differences will not disappear soon and that while all differences don’t necessarily lead to violent conflict, “over the centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most violent conflicts”. The most violent conflicts in the present, he said would be between the West/Christian and Chinese, and the West/Christian and Islamic nations.
This is the gist of his thesis which was elaborated later in a book titled “The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order”, published in 1996.

The response to this thesis has been wide, varied, and furious. Most of it has come from Muslim scholars, humanists, Marxists, and internationalists of various hues. Very little has been said by scholars representing the Hindu viewpoints. We know that part of the clash of civilizations has to do with the emergence of nation states after de-colonization, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the resulting “imbalance” in the political dynamics of the world. Democracy and free market capitalism seemingly won the battle over Communism and state-controlled markets, but we now know that the challenges to democratic governance are many.

After the events of September 11, 2001 and America’s invasion of Afghanistan to rid it of its Taliban regime, and then of Iraq to dethrone Saddam Hussein, debate now rages in many policy circles about the nature of our modern world. Huntington has added more fuel to the controversy recently with an op-ed piece in the <i>Wall Street Journal </i>(June 16, 2004) in which he argues that the United States is primarily a Christian nation, that its liberalism is grounded in Christianity, and that non-Christians will remain “strangers” in the U.S.

Appropriating liberalism in the cause of Christianity, Huntington concludes his essay by saying, “Americans tend to have a certain catholicity toward religion: All deserve respect. Given this general tolerance of religious diversity, non-Christian faiths have little alternative but to recognize and accept America as a Christian society”.

The clash of civilizations that Huntington predicts was foreseen by Bipin Chandra Pal more than a hundred years ago in the book “Nationality and Empire”. Pal predicted that Hindu civilization will side with the Judeo-Christian West in its war against Islamic and Chinese civilizations. Pal proposed his theories despite the fact that he considered the West as the greatest danger to humanity. He was a great admirer of Islam’s spiritual values. Pal thought that Islam was going to be influential through its power of propaganda and not through war, but he was scared of Islam’s political manipulation. He foresaw the dangers of political Islam, which he considered an aberration. Pal is not on Huntington’s reading list, or if he has read him, he is not telling us.

<b>Hindu Responses</b>
The survival of pluralism is linked to a complete understanding of the subversive influence of religious traditions and political ideologies exclusively appropriating claims to God or to a good life. Certain sections of the Muslim society at present win easy acceptance among gullible believers around the world for their monopolistic claims to represent God. Christians are more sophisticated, and have a more powerful colonial tradition to carry on their proselytization businesses, without the shrill cries of jihad that accompany many Muslim initiatives to make the world Muslim. Next, the monopolistic claim to usher in “equality” as dreamed by Marx has come unhinged everywhere in the world except, it seems, in parcels of the academic landscape.

In India, religious conflict has become more and more fierce, more so after the partition of the country. Despite India’s openness there is also native to the Indian tradition a powerful culture of inquiry and resistance to the marketing of spurious ideas and claims. That Jesus is the only son of God and Mohammed the last prophet are claims that Hindus look at skeptically. Islam and Christianity dismiss if not abhor the idea of incarnation of Gods and of imagery and image worship. Without image, there is no worship. Hindus worship their Gods – they bathe them, dress them, kiss them, adorn them, and adore them. For Christians and Muslims, God is a distant being/idea. However, they demand that the rest of the world accept their God or be doomed as “sinners” or as “kafirs”.

The practitioners of many pluralist religions are not driven by religious intolerance as the practitioners of the two “great” monotheistic faiths. So, how should one deal with these aggressive and intolerant religions? Confronted with the paradox of religious freedom and the intolerance espoused by certain religions, the “objection to conversion from any indigenous religious leadership is an urgently necessary and long-overdue assertion, not a violation, of human rights,” argues Swami Dayananda Saraswati.

David Frawley argues (“Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations”, 2001) that India is a sacred land whose kings and people did not seek to conquer others’ lands. He proposes the idea of India as the “world’s mother” – the source of evolutionary transformations. While bemoaning the fact that over time many customs calcified and became dominated by authority and rituals, he believes that India is ready to re-emerge as the world’s spiritual guide to help people transcend time and space to a universal consciousness.

Rajiv Malhotra has argued that the West, China and Islam all represent top-down monocultures. These civilizations adopt a “chauvinistic grand meta-narrative of history”, and their trajectory is “global dominance”. He sees threats to Indic civilization from all three global competitors – the West, Islam, and China. The West seeks to undermine India through its control over Indian churches, through the activities of non-governmental organizations, through propaganda in English language media, and with the help of “academic mercenaries”. The threat that Islam poses is the propagation of Arabism through <i>madrassa </i>education. And China seeks to subvert India through the activities of Maoists and Naxalites, and by flooding India with cheap goods.

Huntington’s thesis is a neo-Christian/Western program which should be seen for what it is: a continuation of the colonial program which sought to lift the rest of the world out of misery because it was the “White man’s burden”. Collaborations that he proposes between the West and some specific others, including India, to fight global Islamism and the Chinese putsch, are based on the old supremacist ideology of Western/Christian domination.

Within the framework of the nation-state system, India will have to collaborate selectively with neighbors and distant partners. The great civilizational divide is between the aggressive monotheistic (and mono-atheistic) traditions and the world’s pluralistic traditions. As such, the fight between the West and Islam is a fight between ideological partners for the world’s collective soul, whereas the fight between the West and China is for territorial and economic gain. Marxism is on the wane in most parts of the world but not in India, where Marxists collaborate with Islamists and Christian fundamentalists to subvert Hindu pluralist traditions.

Indian governments and leaders have been naïve, short-sighted, over eager, or plainly idealistic in many of their attempts to build relationships with individual nations, regional associations, and civilizational groups. Thus, we had Nehru accept the “Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence” (<i>panchsheel</i>) proposed by Zhou Enlai in 1954, and end up a disappointed if not a defeated man when the Chinese invaded India in 1962. Fifty years after the <i>panchsheel </i>was accepted, we have former President K. R. Narayanan proposing (<i>India Abroad</i>, June 25, 2004) a new Indo-Chinese cooperation phase, and explicitly ignoring Chinese expansionist plans, its occupation of Tibet, its aggressive nationalism, and its brazen militarism. Naïveté, inexperience, eagerness, and other weaknesses displayed by Indian policy makers and leaders sap India of material strength and moral sagacity. Similarly, the BJP leaders’ eager attempts to offer support to the Americans immediately after the events of September 11, 2001 fell almost flat on their face because they overlooked the fundamental relationships that shape the modern world dynamic.

So, in conclusion, it is important to be aware of the designs of the world’s two most aggressive religions – Christianity and Islam – and the world’s most aggressive mono-atheism – Marxism. They are still the important markers in the civilizational divides, and the aggressive nationalism of the Chinese is a close second. However, what might, hopefully, come to the aid of pluralists all over the world as well as to Indic traditions is science, which one hopes will reaffirm and support the findings of Indian sages about beginningless time, of cyclical time, of individual liberation, of perennial access to the transcendent, of progress not yoked to history, of multiple ways to attain transcendence, of reincarnation, and so on. If that happens, then the individual and collective quest for temporal power may recede, and the opportunistic and specious speculations of historians and political scientists will cease. Science as a handmaiden of Western imperialism, though, could still be used to undermine pluralist traditions. In the short run though, while all the criticisms of the Hungtington thesis is valid, there is also quite a lot of “reality” embedded in his thesis.


Ramesh Rao
July 2, 2004


<i><span style='color:blue'><b>This article first appeared in India Abroad, the oldest and largest circulated Indian-American newspaper, which is owned by www.rediff.com </b></i></span>

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Views expressed by the author are his own.</span>

<b><span style='color:red'>CLOUDS OVER UNDERSTANDING OF THE VEDAS </b></span>
<i>By B.D.Ukhul </i>

The Myth of the Holy Cow by D.N.Jha published by Verso, London, 2002 is the most damaging book in its contents since the sole intention of the author has been to prove that all ancient Hindu scriptures particularly the Vedas and Shatpath Brahmana etc. uphold beef-eating and this has been the way of life of the Aryans who were our ancestors since the term Hindu came to be introduced much later. The author has cited references from the Vedas, Brahmanas, Upnishads etc. to prove his thesis which perhaps he chose to be the sole mission of his life even though he comes from a Brahamin family and he has dedicated his so called prestigious book to his kin in Rajrani (a symbol of motherhood). Aryans revered cow as a mother and it is really an irony that a son of Bharat has taken immense pains to prove something which is far from truth and also it injures the sentiments of millions of Hindus and in order to demolish his thesis an effort is being hereby made to trace each and every reference cited by him in the book and reveal the truth and nothing but the truth. To commence with, citations quoted from the Rgveda are being dealt with beginning from the very first Mandala of Rigveda.

It is beyond any doubt that the conclusions drawn by Mr. Jha are based on wrong interpretations and the misleading commentaries by the western scholars and also the works of Indian scholars who got patronage of the British rulers. Role of such scholars and their mission to erase our heritage was under a well planned scheme to mould the Indian mind into the western thought and culture and create conditions to cast off our past. Their mission was to spread Christianity and the major players were Macauley and Max Muller and their correspondence and writings* will substantiate this submission. Hereby it will also be revealed that these western scholars could not derive the right and intended spirit of our ancient Rishis and have erred immensely. In the realm of the Vedic interpretation, we owe debt to Swami Dayanand Saraswati(1825-1883), the founder of Aryasamaj who took us back to the Vedas. His commentaries were based on the Nighantu and Yaska’s Nirukta and he thought deep and delved deep to arrive at the rightful adhyatmik and yogic spirit of the mantras. The opinion of a great saint-philosopher Sri Aurobindo Ghosh will be the most pertinent to quote in this regard. “In the matter of Vedic interpretation I am convinced that whatever may be the final complete interpretation, Dayananda will be honoured as the first discoverer of the right clues. Amidst the chaos and obscurity of old ignorance and age long misunderstanding his was the eye of direct vision that pierced to the truth and fastened on that which was essential. He had found the keys of the doors that time had closed and rent asunder the seals of the imprisoned fountains”. AT THIS STAGE IT IS DESIRABLE THAT WE APPROACH THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT TO ENDORSE AND ACCEPT THE RIGHTFUL INTERPRETAIONS INSTEAD OF CLINGING TO DEFECTIVE LITERAL TRANSLATIONS OF THE VEDAS WHICH ARE REVELATIONS BY THE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO BLESSED US WITH THIS DIVINE KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE OUR PATH SINCE THE VEDIC REVELATION WAS SYNCHRONOUS WITH MAN’S FIRST APPEARANCE ON EARTH. How can our creator prescribe offerings of his own creatures? After independence, this aspect should have received due attention but it is sad that this remained untapped and even the Sanskrit language came under cloud when a Rajya Sabha nominated Christian member Frank Anthony introduced a bill to drop this sacred language from the eighth schedule of languages enshrined in the Indian constitution in 1977. There is no doubt that some Western scholars did an appreciable job to introduce the Vedas to the outside world which inspired the scholars to learn Sanskrit to benefit from the treasure of wisdom of Vedic Rishis but unfortunately, it followed a wrong path without application of their inner mind or intellect as was done by the devoted disciple of Swami Virajanand who was actually blind of eyes but he imparted such vision and deep knowledge to Dayanand that he clung to the soul and spirit of the Vedas and it is our bounden duty to follow this path to understand the sacred words of God which can never be wrong and are ever infallible.

In the context of the commentary/translation of the Vedas by Max Muller, it will be relevant to point out the opinion of Mr. Boulanger, the editor of Russian edition of The Sacred Books of the East Series as follows:

“What struck me in Max Mullar’s translation was a lot of absurdities, obscene passages and a lot of what is not lucid”.

“As far as I can grab the teaching of the Vedas, it is so sublime that I would look upon it as a crime on my part, if the Russian public becomes acquainted with it through the medium of a confused and distorted translation, thus not deriving for its soul that benefit which this teaching should give to the people”.

In his book ‘Vedic Hymns’, Max Muller himself says “My translation of the Vedas is conjectural”.

HEREUNDER the glaring difference in substance and the spirit of the cited Suktas 162 and 163 of the first Mandala of Rigveda is illustrated to establish that misinterpretation is at the root of this problem. Each Sukta has its risi and devata; risi depicts ‘drashta’ whereas devata depicts the subject matter which facilitates the understanding of the mantras under respective Sukta.

Sukta 162-

<b>Name of risi Name of devata</b>
Deerghatama Mitradyo Lingokta (As per Sw.Dayanand)
Deerghatama Ashav-stuti (As per translation of HH Wilson)

Sukta 163-

<b>Name of risi Name of devata</b>
Deerghatama Ashvo-agnirdevta (As per Sw.Dayanand)
Deerghatama Ribhuganh (As per translation of HH Wilson)

The above implies that both the Suktas are in glorification of the horse but our Western enthusiasts and Mr.Jha along with his Indian ideals have even ignored the very basic lead and gone for crucification of the spirit of mantras which is left to your esteemed judgement.

Sukta 162 has 22 mantras while Sukta 163 has 13 mantras. Mr. Jha states that in the ashvamedha(horse sacrifice),the most important of the Vedic public sacrifices,first referred to in the Rigveda in the afore-stated Suktas (p.31 of his book).

Sukta 162 in fact deals with the science of applying horse power (automation) of the fire pervading in the form of energy.

No mantra supports sacrifice of horses. Of course the first mantra has been translated by Max Muller in a wrong manner as follows:

“May Mitra,Varuna,Aryaman,Ayush,Indra,the Lord of Ribhus and the Maruta not rebuke us because we shall proclaim at the sacrifice virtues of the swift horse sprung from the god”.(from History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature). Similarly H.H.Wilson in his translation based on the commentary of Sayanacarya states as follows:

“Let neither Mitra nor Varuna,Aryaman,Ayu,Indra,Ribhukshin,nor the Maruts,censure us;when was proclaim in the sacrifice the virtues of the swift horse sprung from the gods”.

Transliterated version of this mantra is given below:

Ma no mitro varuno arymayurindro ribhuksha marutah parikhyan Yadvajino devajatasya sapteh pravakshyamo vidathe veeryani

Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati in his Hindi commentary has rendered the translation as follows:

We the performers of yajna in all seasons (vidathe) in the battle field (yat) whose (vajinah) stormy (devajatasya) learned men and borne out of the divine virtues (sapte) of the horse (veeryani) unique performances (pravakshyamah) we shall describe (nah) the daring performances of our horses (mitrah) friend (varunah) sublime (aryama) the deliverer of justice (ayuh) the knower (indrah) the all-elivated or aishvaryavan (ribhuksha) intelligent and (marutah) priests (ma, pari,khyan) should never disregard these properties.

To easily grasp the spirit of mantra the following translation will be helpful.

We shall describe here the energy generating virtues of the powerful horses(planets),added with brilliant properties of the vigorous force of heat. The learned never dispute these properties.

There is vast difference in the above quoted translations.Obviously the wrong seeds were sown by Sayan and Mahidhar who were the ideals adopted by the western scholars, namely Max Muller, Griffith , Wilson etc. Sw.Dayanand Saraswati in his book “An Introduction to the Vedas” has adversely criticised on the commentaries of Sayan and Mahidhar in context of some of their interpretations of the Vedic hymns. They could be held responsile for the horrible and horried interpretations which suggest as if the Vedas were the texts to lay down the modes of sacrifices. Is it not a tragedy for the Dharamacharyas/Sanskrit scholars of this country that they also could not pursue the path shown by Dayanand and got bogged down only in the rituals of worship in the temples and no attention was paid to the sources of knowledge which were the guiding principles of Aryans, our worthy ancestors and sons of the mother India (Aryavrat) as the Vedas proclaimed man as ‘amritasya putras’ and we need to follow this path if we want to be proud of our heritage and hold our head high or otherwise we are going to be labelled with the legacy of butchers and animal killers who desired to please different gods by various sacrifices performed in the yajnas.

Eighth mantra of this Sukta is translated as follows:

The fleet of horses is controlled by holding of bridles and saddles placed thereon. To make them strong,the grass and cereals are fed to them. Likewise,the learned people control and regulate their power of senses and taking nourishing diet.

Wilson’s translation is as follows:

May the halter and the heel-ropes of the fleet courser, and the head-ropes, the girths, and any other (part of the harness); and the grass that has been put into his mouth; may all these be with you,(horse),amongst the gods. (THIS IS NOTHING BUT LITERAL AND MECHANICAL TRANSLATON BEREFT OF THE SUBSTANCE & SPIRIT OF THE MANTRA)

Ninth mantra again was again wrongly interpreted by Max Muller,Wilson and Griffith to translate the word ’kravishah’ as the flesh. It is an adjective of ‘ashvasya’ and derived from kramu-padavikshepe. Hence it means ‘ the pacing horse’ and not of the flesh. ‘shamituh’ has been translated by Prof. Max Muller and Wilson as of the immolator. Griffith has translated it as ‘of a slayer’. But etymologically ‘sam-alochne’ means ‘to look at’ (with love and peace) and should mean ‘ a person who looks at the living beings with love and peace and not slayer’.

Twelfth mantra emphasizes on the qualities of the warrior and its translation is as follows:

They who crave for the meat of a horse and declare the horse fit to be killed should be exterminated. Those who keep the fast horse well trained and disciplined deserve to be praised by us for the strength of their character and perseverance. (IT CLEARLY DEMOLISHES THE THESIS OF JHA AND PROVES THAT HE HAS MERELY QUOTED CITATIONS AND HARDLY CARED TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL TEXT BUT INSPIRED BY THE FOLLOWING TRANSLATION OF WILSON):

“Let their exertions be for our good who watch the cooking of the horse; who say, it is fragrant; therefore give us some: who solicit the flesh of the horse as alms”. (WHAT AN IMMENSE DAMAGE TO THE SPIRIT OF THE MANTRA).

Mantras 13 to 19 deal with the theme of horse or automation power while 20 to 22 are devoted to the benefits of Yoga exercises and an ideal life.

Sukta 163

This Sukta deals with various attributes of learned person, agni, science & technology. There are references to the horse to illustrate its unique qualities of its immense energy likened to agni (fire), intelligence, bravery and inbuilt attributes which are at par with those of the men of wisdom. Perusal of some mantras will bring home this point.

First mantra includes or rather ends with ‘arvan’ and this word denotes as per Yv 29.12 vigyanvan athva ashvaiv veguvan vidvan=O learned person active like the horse.

Second mantra includes the term ‘surat ashvam’ which means the fast moving agni i.e the fire which enables a speedy locomotion.

Third mantra includes the term ‘adityah arvan’ and here it means the sun which is all pervading. ‘arvan’means sarvatrapraptah=pervading all. This term was wrongly translated by Prof. Wilson , Griffith and others, while both admit in the notes that Yama means Agni, Aditya-Sun and Trita-Vayu. How can horse be identified with Agni (fire) sun and the air etc.none has cared to justify. To take ‘arva’ for agni, there is the clear authority of the Taittiriya Brahmana.(I.36,4).

Fourth mantra includes the word ‘arvan’ where it is used to mean the learned and wise people.

Eighth mantra includes the word ‘arvan’ through which the mighty and active person has been likened to the horse who bears such characteristics.

Ninth mantra includes the word ‘arvantam’ which means vegavantam agnim ashvam=the rapid horse in the form of Agni (fire, electricity etc.)

Tenth mantra includes the word ‘ashva’ where it means the bright swift horses in the form of fire, air, water etc.

Eleventh mantra includes the word ‘arvan’ and the following translation of this mantra will endorse our stand that the unique qualities of the horse are emphasized in Sukta-163:

“O brave person! You are active like a horse, your body is like a swift vehicle, your mind is like the wind in motion. Your sublime actions are initiated from the proper use of fire and electricity. These are spread in all directions like the hoary creatures in the forests”. One can see that this mantra is in praise of highly skilled technicians.

Wilson’s translation reads as follows:

“Your body, horse, is made for motion , your mind is rapid (in intention ) as the wind: the hairs (of your mane) are tossed in manifold directions; and spread beautiful in the forests”.(ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF MECHANICAL TRANSLATION)

Twelfth mantra includes the term ’vajyarva’ which means agni swift(vegavan) like a horse and here in this mantra use of agni is highlighted.

Thirteenth and the last mantra of this Sukta contains the word ‘arvan’ where it means agnyadashvan= horses in the form of fire, electricity etc.

ASVAMEDHA has been translated as horse sacrifice as referred above by Jha and the conclusions drawn accordingly and this has been the root cause of varied wrong interpretations and in order to illustrate its scope and meaning the following is stated:

At the sight of words ‘asvamedha,gomedha,purushmedha,ajmedha’ there ia general tendency to interpret it to denote as hinsa/sacrifice/killing. ‘medha’ word’s verb or dhatu is ‘medhri’. ‘medhrisangame hinsayam cha’ i.e. to enhance pure intellect , to inculcate love and integration among the people and also hinsa i.e killing (this dhatu conveys these three meanings).But it does not always mean killing or sacrifice and in Sanskrit no literal translation will do where a particular word carries varied meanings and it has to be applied judiciously and thoughtfully keeping in view the context of the text. The words ‘purushmedha’ and ‘nriyajna’ are synonyms. In manusmriti the word ‘nriyajna’ has been defined as’nriyajnoatithipoojanam’ (manusmriti -3.70) it means the pooja or honour of the guests. If we take the meaning of the root ‘medhri’ as sangamanarth it will come to be interpreted as to organize the people for virtuous deeds or to enhance the love and equanimity among them i.e. it would be ‘nriyajna’or ‘purushmedh’. It may be pertinent to mention here that ‘nrimedha’ is a rishi of some vedic hymns of Samveda. It can never mean the one who kills or sacrifices the human beings. Consequently, the terms followed by medha always do not signify killing/sacrifice and therefore the interpretations made by the Western scholars are utterly wrong and unacceptable.

In Shatpath Brahmana (13.1.6) it is stated “Rashtram va asvamedhah” i.e. Asvamedha means to manage or run the affairs of the rashtra (country) in a befitting manner.

In the Shantiparva of Mahabharata (3.336) there is mention of asvamedha of the king Vasu in which numerous rishis and learned men participated.In this context it is clearly mentioned “n tatra pashughato-abhoot” i.e. there was no killing of any animal. Further in this Parva at 3.327, the following is stated in context with ‘ajamedh’:

Ajairyajneshu yashtavyamiti vai vaidiki shruti Ajasanjnani beejani chhaganno hantumarhatha Naishah dharmah satam devah yatra vadhyeta vai pashuh

It means that whenever it is stated to use aja for performance of yajna, it means the seeds called ‘aja’ have to be used. Here it does not mean a goat. It is not proper to kill goats and it does not behove the virtuous people to indulge in killing of the animals.

Sw.Dayanand Saraswati in his book “An introduction to the Vedas” at p.448-449 states that God is Jamadagni i.e. Ashvamedha. An empire is like a horse and the subjects like other inferior animals. As other animals,the strength, so the subjects are weaker than the state assembly. The glory and splendour of an empire consists in wealth,gold etc. and in administration of justice”.(Shatpath Brahmana: XIII.2.2.14-17) It is further stated that God’s name is Ashva also,because , He pervades the whole universe (Ashva comes from the root ‘Ash’ which means to pervade).

The above derivations call for our cautious approach and take upon ourselves the task of removing the mist caused by misinterpretations to see the truth which can be one and only one and feel proud of our heritage.

Rakshabandhan: 7th Bhadrapada, 2059
22nd August,2002

(To be continued)

(The author expresses his gratitude to Shri Bharat Bhushan Vidyalankar for his guidance,encouragement and valuable suggestions in compilation of the write-up)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*It was February, 1835 , a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education. His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation , which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and , therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own ,they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. (Source:The Awakening Ray,Vol.4 No.5, The Gnostic Centre) Reproduced in Niti issue of April,2002 at p.10- a periodic publication of Bharat Vikas Parishad, Delhi.

<b>Bibliography </b>

Dayanand Saraswati. An introduction to the Vedas ; translated from the original Sanskrit by Ghasi Ram. 3rd edn. Delhi,Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha,1998.

Bharat Bhushan Vidyalankar. Vedon ke sambandh men bharant dharnayen -mss. Delhi,2002. 11pp.

Rgveda Samhita with English translation by Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar. Delhi,Veda Pratishthana,1977.

The Rigveda with Maharishi Dayanda Saraswati’s Commentary. Translated into English by Acharya Dharam Dev Vidya Martanda. Delhi,Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha,1974.

Rgveda: Hindi Bhashya -pratham mandal by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati. Delhi,Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha,1972.

Rgveda Samhita:Sanskrit text,English translation and notes according to translation of H.H.Wilson and Bhasya of Sayanacarya edited and revised with exhaustive introduction and notes by Ravi Prakash Arya and K.L.Joshi. Delhi,Parimal Publications,1997. 4 vols.

Vidyanand Saraswati. Aaryon ka aadi desh aur unki sabhyata. Delhi,Arya Prakashan,2002

{ Author is a former Librarian of Indian National Science Academy,New Delhi Presently up-pradhan of Aryasamaj , C Block, Janakpuri,New Delhi. Postal Address: C2A/58, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. Telephone: 25525128}

<b>ANNEXURE: The synopsis on the jacket of the book entitled ‘The myth of the holy cow’ by D.N.Jha reads as follows: “The growth of religious fundamentalism in India is symbolized by the existence of a BJP government committed to the Hindutva. There is growing pressure to declare the cow a sacred, national animal and to ban its slaughter. The Myth of the Holy Cow is an illuminating response to this crazed confessionalism. It challenges obscurantist views on the sanctity of the cow in Hindu tradition and Culture. Dwijendra Narayan Jha, a leading Indian historian, argues that beef eating played an important part in the cuisine of ancient India, long before the birth of Islam. It was very much a feature of the approved Brahamanical and Buddhist diet. The evidence he produces from a variety of religious and secular texts is compelling. His opponents, including the current government of India and the fundamentalist groups backing it, have demanded that the book should be ritually burned in public. It has already been banned by the Hyderabad Civil Court and the author’s life has been threatened”. </b>

[This article has also been published in the journal namely, “Vedic Science” in the issue dated July-Sept.Vol.4,No.3(20002) and is also placed on the website www.love4cow.com]

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Views expressed by the author are his own.</span>

<span style='color:red'><b>Vedanta & Hindu Philosophy</b></span>
<i>By: Veera Vaishnava</i>
Veera_vishnu@rediffmail.com


<b>I. Introduction</b>

Vedanta, meaning “the end of the Veda,” is one of the six schools of traditional Hindu philosophy. It is the basis of Hinduism. Vedanta in principle based on summary of teachings of Brahma sutras.

The main schools within Vedanta are Advaita (<i>Non-Dualism or monism</i>), Vishishtadvaita (<i>Qualified Non-Dualism or qualified monism</i>) and Dvaita (<i>Dualism</i>). These three different schools of thought deal with the relationship between world, selves and Brahman and the nature of Brahman, and how to achieve liberation. Brahman is asserted as the universal soul and the absolute truth. Brahman plays multiple roles: creator, maintainer and the destroyer, all in one (<i>Trinity</i>). All three schools maintain the individual human soul (jiva-atma) originates and merges with the Brahman (<i>Parama-atma</i>), however the viewpoints and approaches on achieving the same is different.

Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya expounded the Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophies respectively. In this article, as this is an effort to keep the study of Vedanta readable and understandable to a lay reader, a brief and short overview of three schools of thought and their similarities and differences are presented. Through out the article, Brahman and God are used interchangeably, but for subtle differences between the definition of Brahman and God, refer to [1].

The distinct features of Hindu philosophy/Vedanta is the unwavering focus on the spiritual realm. Except Carvaka and related schools, Hindu philosophy has always been interested in the spiritual destiny of an individual soul, and the relationship between the universe and the soul, which is also spiritual in nature. Philosophy in India was never considered as a mere intellectual exercise. The relationship between philosophical thoughts, theory and practice, has always been the focus of Hindu thought. Every hindu system seeks the truth, and not just an “academic knowledge”, as it is believed that truth shall set one free. It was and is never enough just to know the truth, but to “live” the truth. In the pursuit of truth, Hindu philosophy has always turned inward “Aatma vidya”, and not on the external, physical manifestations of the world. This does not mean, that external world was ignored, Hindus achievements in the realm of science, mathematics, medicine, architecture, astronomy, geometry and application of such knowledge to different phases and aspects of human activity is very well known, documented and acknowledged.

Hindu philosophy was not oblivious to materialism. In fact, Hindu thought knew it and has overcome it. Hindu philosophy makes extensive use of reason and intellectual knowledge but intuition is accepted as the only method through which the ultimate truth can be known. Reason and intellectual knowledge has been considered as insufficient, as to know the reality, one must have an actual experience of it [Darsana]


<b>II. Evolution – Vedas to Vedanta</b>

The Vedas are the oldest scriptures of India as well as the world. Vedas are not written by anyone, but is “experienced” knowledge. The Rishis or the seers of the Truth visualized the mantras or the text of the Vedas and stored for the benefit of the world by oral and later written tradition through the tradition of Guru and disciples (<i>Guru-parampara</i>). Vedas are personification of Brahman as words. Vedas are divided into two portions: Karma-kanda and Jnana-kanda. While Samhitas, Brahmanas, and Aranyakas form the Karma kanda, Upanishads form the Jnana Kanda. The essence of the knowledge of the Vedas is called by the name Vedanta, which comprises the Upanishads.

Hindu philosophy is highly complex and over a period of few thousands of years has gone through similarly complex developmental phases. The literature of the first period -“Vedic period” - are the above mentioned texts.

The second period - “Epic period” -saw the indirect presentation of philosophical doctrines through a medium of non-systematic and non-technical literature such as Ramayana and Mahabharata. This period also gave rise to Buddhism, Jainism, Saivism and Vaishnavism. Bhagavad-Gita, part of Mahabharata ranks among the most authoritative texts in Hindu Philosophical literature. During this period, along with Buddhism and Jainism other unorthodox philosophies such as skepticism, materialism, naturalism etc arose along with other heterodox systems. Because of this later arrival into Hindu philosophical school the earlier thoughts were labeled orthodox philosophical systems.

The third period – “Aphorism period” – is during the early centuries of Christian era, where systematical treatises of various schools of thought were written and preserved. They were preserved in the form of aphorisms, hence this period can be called Sutra period. The six systems that are presented in sutra form are: Vaisheshika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. Rishis Kanada, Gautama, Kapila, Patanjali, Jaimini, and Vyasa are the earliest exponents of these systems respectively.

There are certain common features to these six systems of thought; first and foremost is that they accept the authority of the Vedas, distinguishing them from philosophical schools of Buddhism and Jainism. Second important feature is that, although superficially these systems seem to have contradictions amongst them, they in fact represent a progressive development from lower to higher truth. All the six schools believe in the 'Law of Karma', rebirth, and attainment of Moksha/Liberation as the highest goal of human struggle. All the systems are concerned with the nature of true Self, the realization of which through Yoga and other spiritual disciplines makes one free.

The fourth period - “Scholastic period” - saw the advent of scholars, philosophers and commentators such as Adi Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Kumarila, Sridhara, Vacaspati, Udayana, Bhaskara, Jayanta, Vijnanabhikshu and Raghunatha.

The three major forms of Vedanta [2] espoused by Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva although are distinct and elaborate systems, they all stem from “Vedanta Sutra” of Badarayana. This is a characteristic of Hindu philosophy in which, the exponents while maintaining respect for the past and without breaking the tradition, and recognizing the authority in philosophy, continued the development of thought as their insight, intuition and reason directed. This is quite a unique feature in Hindu philosophy.

Nyaya and Samkhya are studied widely for their powerful system of logic and reasoning. Yoga deals with disciplined meditation. Purva Mimamsa mostly deals with earlier interpretive investigations of the Vedas, relating to conduct, while the Uttara mimamsa deals with later investigations of the Vedas, relating to knowledge, also called Vedanta, the <b>end of the Vedas</b>. In the context of modern times, Yoga and Vedanta have caught the attention of students of religion, scholars, as well as lay people for their practicality, rationality, and scientific basis. All Hindus now accept Vedanta as their 'living faith'.


<b>III. Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita </b>

<b>Advaita </b>– The quintessence of Shankara’s Advaita is: “<i>Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah</i>—Brahman alone is real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” Shankara believed that Brahman which is pure, eternal and absolute. Anything other than the Absolute including the manifested world, and the individuals themselves was an illusion (<i>Maya</i>). The Brahman seen by the devotee as Saguna Brahman is illusory and imaginary and seen only through <i>Maya</i>. The day to day mundane activities such as worshipping etc although seems real, ultimately there is only one reality, the Brahman, who is the impersonal God (<i>nirguna Brahman or Brahman without any attributes</i>), with which the individual soul is identical. Nirguna Brahman is also <i>nirvishesha </i>or without any characteristics and <i>nirakara </i>or without any shape and form. It is this recognition of <i>nirguna </i>Brahman that leads one to salvation, which can be obtained by meditation and knowledge.

<b>Vishishtadvaita </b>- Ramanujacharya proposed that the road to salvation was through Bhakti yoga, devoted to a personal God, namely Narayana or Vishnu. Unlike Nirguna Brahman of Advaita, Ramanuja’s Narayana/Vishnu is a complex organic whole of soul and matter in one. Soul and matter constitute the body of the Lord and they are his subordinates. Further Vishnu has attributes (<i>vishesha</i>), hence <i>Savishesha </i>Brahman is the fundamental belief of Vishishtadvaitins. Matter forms the non-conscious form of the Lord, while the soul is the conscious form. Saguna Brahman is omnipotent, omniscient and all pervasive Reality. All living beings have originated from Brahman, the origin of reality but are temporarily separated from Him. The individual soul, having origin in Brahman however was always distinct from Him. And the soul is always conscious of itself, otherwise it would cease to exist. It was one with God, but yet separate, and for this reason the Ramanuja’s school of thought is called <b>Vishishtadvaita</b>.

<b>Dvaita </b>- Madhvacharya preached that God, individual soul and matter were eternally and completely different. Liberation is the individual soul’s innate bliss and this is the final emancipation (<i>Moksha </i>or <i>mukti</i>). Madhva’s school of thought was called sad-vaishnavism as it belonged to the Vaishnava School but was different from Ramanuja’s school of Sri- Vaishnavism.


<b>IV. Main Differences and Similarities</b>

Upanishads are basically of three types” -Bheda, Abheda and Ghataka shrutis. Bheda shruti shows the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma: “I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave him”, Abheda shruthi, the opposite says Brahman and Paramatma are one and the same: “I am Brahman”, Ghataka Shruti describes the relationship between Paramatma and Jivatma and Body/Soul relationship: Antaryami (<i>Iswara being the soul of Jivatma and controls from inside</i>) Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala Upanishad are examples of Ghataka Shruti. Ghataka Shruti reconciles and harmonizes the apparently contradictory passages in the Vedas. Without Ghataka approach it would be hard to interpret Abheda Shrutis. Ghataka shruti achieves that by explaining the body and soul relationship. Taken all together, the basic principle is Brahman or Iswara is the soul of Jivatma and matter and all its variations. This is the basis of Vishishtadvaita philosophy.

Advaita means “Not Two”. The advaitins say that Jivatma and Paramatma are One and identical. The father of this philosophy is Shri Adi Shankaracharya. Vishishtadvaita means “Not Two – in a special way” or “Only one – in a special way”. It maintains that Jivatma and paramatma are different, yet not different. They are different as (based on Bheda Shruti) body and soul are different, but based on Ghataka’s explanation of body/soul relationship, they are not different – they are one.

Advaitins cannot explain bheda shrutis entirely, and Dvaitins cannot explain abheda shrutis properly. Vishishtadvaita system is the only one which explains both Bheda and Abheda with the help of Ghataka Shrutis.


<b>A. Maya and Reality</b>

Advaitins believe everything is “Maya” except Paramatma. This means even the whole world is an illusion. To explain this, advaitins have three types of reality. They are

• Apparent Reality (<i>Pratibhasika Sat</i>) – Example: Mistaking rope for a snake.
• Relative Reality (<i>Vyavaharika Sat</i>) – Example: World, Sky, Water, Fire, Earth etc
• Absolute Reality (<i>Paramarthika Sat</i>) – Brahman

• Vedas describe Brahman as: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born, by whom all these beings live, in whom all these beings rest, after death.
• Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So, how can the world, which has evolved from Brahman, be unreal?
• Brahman is also instrumental cause of this world, he creates the world. So, how can a thing, which has been created by Brahman, be unreal?

• between Brahman and the individual soul
• between soul and matter
• between one soul and another soul
• between the soul and matter
• between one piece of matter and another.

• 1.Is God a good translation for Brahman - http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Articles/articles2.htm
• 2.The three great Acharyas - http://www.indianest.com/hinduism/030.htm

If AIDs is not checked, it will impact India’s stability. It is as dangerous as any external threat to India.
2-5% of India's population is HIV carrier and 1% is suffering from AIDs.

<b>Army takes celluloid route to combat AIDS</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For the first time the Indian army admits that it could be facing an AIDS problem and it's taking the threat seriously.

Many of the army's jawans contract the HIV virus while in service. Testing is only done at the time of joining and so new cases only appear during treatment for other ailments or blood transfusion.

Alarming figures

<b>Estimates put this at around 2 per cent currently, but actual figures could be much, much higher</b>.
"The movement of our troops is quite frequent and there are some areas and borders like the Burma border where the vulnerability of our troops increases. Since the period of separation from the family is longer, there is a lot of interaction with the local population," said Lt Gen JR Bharadwaj, DG, AFMS<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The film called Akhri Dastak on AIDS awareness will be shown to more than 1 million soldiers of the Indian army.

The film revolves around the life of a young jawan who contracts AIDS from a sex worker while he is away from his family. All commanding officers have been ordered to screen this film for their jawans<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>In order to keep the focus of this thread on an Introductory level to establish definitions and concepts, I have decided to split this off and see how it goes (despite an opposing opinion). I would like this thread to be focused on topic, so that we all start off on the right foot. I find usually when assumptions and definitions are clearly stated much of the basis for future contentiousness is reduced and as a consequence has more clarity. This thread will follow the lead of Sunder by discussing Panchadasi by Vidyaranaya.</span>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->May be it is time to have a full scale debate on Vedanta. But it will be fruitless if Vedanta were to be judged as science. It is a system of philosophy and those who are willing to debate it as a system of philosophy are welcome to join in. Also if someone hasn't spent the effort in going through the Vedanta texts and understanding them but still wants to pass judgements on them, then all I can say is that I can find better use for my time on the web.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Ashok, I agree with the general tenor of your remarks. Vedanta is indeed a powerful philosophy, an ontological construct of the human intellect that is grand in its scope and sweep but which is beyond the grasp of many as they ponder on the implications (I dont necessarily exclude myself from this category - even though I have been a perpetual student of this elegant logical construct for a few decades).

The Proper way to discuss Vedanta is to start from the beginning and establish your definitions and inferences slowly. If we intend to do this in this forum, i suggest an elementary prakarana grantha like Tattvabodha (to build up our dictionary of definitions and avoid unnecessary confusion) and work our way from there. That would induce newcomers to join. Even a relatively small text like the tattvabodha (or the Atma bodha both by Adi Sankara) needs several sessions. We need a moderator or a facilitator to lead the discussion and to keep it focused. If there are any takers it would be worthwhile (at the rate of 1 or 2 lecture or tutorial sessions per week. Such elaboratory material (bhashyas on bhashyas) are available in relative profusion in the net, but we still need a moderator to closely monitor the discussion. I have too many things to juggle at the moment. But if one of the members could organize such a discussion forum, tightly focused on the material at hand,then it would be a immense benefit.

<b>Asymmetric Warfare: An Infantry Perspective!</b>

When exactly did asymmetric warfare start? It is hard to pin point exact date. But it is easy to assume that it was very common for an inferior army (in terms of armament/technology) to have to face a superior army (in terms of armament/technology) in any age or time. Anytime an army introduced a non-conventional tactic to neutralize a superior army and its superior armaments, asymmetric warfare was introduced into the equation. When Alexander faced large army of king Porus backed by battle ready elephants, he ordered his army to shoot the elephants in the eyes. As a result, Porus’ elephants did more damage to Porus’ army than to Alexander’s army. This example is a textbook example of introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare.

Current world order is filled with uncertainties. Scores of nations often find themselves in situations where they have to face an adversary armed with superior weapons/technology. A country armed with hi-tech weapons of today can render a low-tech country defenseless. Sometimes these low-tech nations have just cause to defend and therefore surrender is not an option for them. Nations have to guard their vital interests with whatever weapons they got. If there was ever an absolute need for asymmetric warfare to confound the superior enemy, it is today. Introduction of asymmetric factor into warfare has saved many a nations.

I am writing this article from a military point of view. During the course of this article it will become necessary for me to cite real examples, meaning examples of actual standoffs or conflicts. This article does not serve to justify the cause of one nation over other. I do not endorse the political philosophy of any nation mentioned in this article. I simply intend to analyze the military tactics used by different nations and if or how they can be categorized as asymmetric warfare.

China gave importance to its development of nuclear-armed ICBMs/IRBMs over its development of conventional weapons such as air superiority fighters or an aircraft carrier for a considerable period of time. It was China’s aim to contain much superior adversaries such as USSR and USA by pointing nuclear weapons at them instead of matching their conventional arsenals of tanks and fighter aircrafts. With this, China introduced asymmetric warfare in its standoff against both USSR (former) and USA. During cold war USA and former USSR were locked in arm’s race with each other. USSR’s initial policy was to match USA in terms of technology and number of weapons. But USSR soon realized that due to their inferior economy, they could not continue this approach for too long. This problem for USSR became really clear when USA started deploying its mighty fleets of awesome carriers. Aircraft carriers are mighty force in terms of power they display. They are equipped with submarine scanning helicopters, fighters/bombers, ring of destroyers/frigates, supporting ring of submarines and much more. All this adds up to massive amount of money, which was impossible for ex Soviet empire to come up with. There are only handfuls of nations who have aircraft carriers. A major power like China does not have a single aircraft carrier in its naval fleet. India has only one aircraft carrier. USSR has/had a few carriers in its Navy. So, USSR decided to build fleets of nuclear powered submarines capable of firing nuclear-armed IRBM/ICBM instead of matching USA for carrier for carrier. This was an introduction of asymmetric warfare at a grand scale. This affected the entire sum game for USA and warranted some drastic changes in US strategy towards USSR. This also stresses the point that asymmetric factor can be needed even among more or less technologically matched adversaries. In this case examples were USA and ex USSR.

There is a lot of mention of terrorism in the circle of pundits of asymmetric warfare. It seems like people accept terrorism as one of the tactics of asymmetric warfare. This may be true. But I want to keep the scope of this article limited to military tactics only. I am fully aware of the military implications of terrorism and subjective nature of my decision to term what I call military tactics. I intend to discuss the asymmetric warfare from infantry’s perspective and what war scenario would warrant deployment of infantry in such manner in remainder of this article.

Infantry itself can be introduced as an asymmetric component in a war. To illustrate my point, we will take Gulf War-I as an example. Here we had adversaries very unevenly matched. US had clear air superiority. Although Iraqi air force was not as good as US air force but at this stage it did have some good aircrafts. Iraq had large number of tanks and had indeed very large infantry, if not well equipped and trained. Iraqis clearly faced a situation, which called for introduction of asymmetric warfare. Their failure to do so resulted in a decisive victory for US armed forces over their Iraqi counterparts. Iraqis at that time did have some chemical weapons but they did not use it, although it could have been the easiest asymmetric tactic for Iraqis to deploy. The fact that Iraqis did not use chemical weapons speaks volume for the importance of psychological warfare. Their will to use only effective weapons they could have used was broken even before the war started. Iraqis were reminded, the consequences that would follow if they were to use chemical weapons on US troops. Based on this, one could question Iraq’s will to fight the battle and therefore could conclude that outcome of the Gulf War-I was inevitable. Seems like Iraqis fought on US’ terms. When US was carrying out its carrier born air strikes on Iraq, Iraq decided to intercept US aircrafts using Iraqi air force fleet of Migs and Sukhois. US air force equipped with superior armament and training was able to dominate the sky without much problem.

On the ground Iraqis decided to match US army for tank for tanks. Advancing Iraqi columns of tanks and armored vehicles were tracked by US radars and were taken out effectively by air strikes. Even in tank-to-tank battles odds were in favor of US due to superior armor and firepower. This was proven when Iraqi armored divisions collided with US armored divisions. US armored divisions supported with Apache destroyed whatever Iraqi tanks, which survived the air strikes. Iraqi aircrafts were loosing to US aircrafts in the air. Iraqi tanks were loosing to US tanks on the ground. Since Iraqis were maintaining large concentrations of troops and materials such as military trucks, artillery and APC, it was easier for US military to track their movement by radar and safely take them out from the air in many cases. Even after all this, Iraq did not use single tactic, which could be categorized as asymmetric warfare even though the situation desperately warranted it.

There are many factors that play vital role in determining the outcome of a war. Asymmetric component is not a guarantee to successfully defeat an adversary. Iraq seemed to have hoped that they would bleed US forces long enough to force domestic opinion in US to pull out of Iraq. For this policy to work, it was vital for Iraq to be able to hold the ground. But they did not and thus the outcome of the war was one-sided. In the air Iraq had no chance. Even Iraqi SAMs were easy kill for highly skilled USAF pilots. USAF had spent a lot of time and effort in training its pilots against SAM batteries going back to Vietnam. US pilots are undoubtedly one of the best SAM killers in the world.

Giving this scenario, Iraqis should have concentrated on the ground. Even on the ground, US had decisive superiority over Iraqis. But Iraqis could have used their infantry in an asymmetric role. Professional armies in the world spend great deal of effort on their infantry. This holds true for considerably advanced nations such as Russia and USA. Need for a highly trained and tactically armed infantry becomes indispensable for nations who will be facing much more powerful enemies and who are likely to fight a battle on their territory. In this case example is Iraq. To use infantry in an asymmetric role it has to have two things, training and a few key weapons. Instead of taking on superior US tanks, Iraqis should have introduced anti tank missiles. Anti-tank missile has a range of about 9km and can be hidden in the bushes or desert camouflage. Chances of Iraqis taking out US tanks by anti-tank missiles were much higher than by tank-to-tank battles. Similarly, there was a good chance of neutralizing Apache using SA-7 or its more modern variants. A sizable infantry force armed with anti tank missiles and shoulder fired SA missiles dispersed in their hidings would have been much tougher force to reckon with. A force, which cannot be tracked by radar unlike advancing, armored columns. This force coupled with hidden and dispersed artillery would have confounded US army units significantly if not decisively. Ironically protected by infantry, the tanks could have been used against US forces under more opportune conditions.

A well-trained and equipped infantry in an asymmetric role was their best chance against a powerful adversary.

Author: Arun K Pandey

I personally feel that using Kulhars for drinking or eating anything is not at all Hygienic Practice. They would fast absorb atmospheric moisture and hence microbes; which in turn could set of a bout of dysentery or gastroenteritis to those who use them for any human consumption. As the “consciousness on hygiene of our lower classes is abysmally low, disposable plastic cups (which are not biodegradable) or even better paper cups (which are easily biodegradable) should be continued in Indian Railways as well as everywhere.

On this Maneka Gandhi appears to have a few valid points, including some environmental concerns, et al.

Clay-Pot Dictator!

Can these concerns be brought to the notice of the Indian Railway Authorities if not to that of our LallooooBhai!

<span style='color:red'><b>Generation "Vice" and Kamasutra</b></span>

By: <i><b>Veera Vaishnava</b></i>

<b>Introduction</b>

In the generation of vice, Hindus much like their counterparts indeed have a pantheon much different to original Hindu pantheon. They have gods of money, power, carnality, selfishness, addiction, materialism, commercialism, wantonness, greed, gluttony, snobbery, prejudice, bigotry, false righteousness, pride, relativism, hopelessness, cruelty, thoughtlessness, self abuse, indifference, superiority, exclusiveness, carelessness, “me-first ness,” unsatisfied desires, disobedience, arrogance, laziness, intemperance, rationalization and many more. Their determination seems to be the destruction of social institutions as we know it, and apparently their “Moksha” – salvation. The means are following their jaundiced and distorted view of the Hindu world and ethos. In this essay, let’s briefly examine such instance of distorted view of Kamasutra and potential effect and long term impact on social institution(s).

Many Hindus these days apart from appeasing their said regular gods often invoke and appease their god of gods - <b>The God of Rationalization</b>. The acts which are basically moral failures, have to be justified as the rebuke of conscience is pretty difficult to live with. To completely erase the conscience, they appeal to and invoke the god of gods - <b>Zeus</b> <span style='color:blue'>(a)</span>. The hope for Zeus's children in the Generation Vice is, if Zeus is properly propitiated he will somehow make heretofore forbidden desires and acts permissible. They then advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated and surrendered to. In their minds they replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity they are excusing. This is not a mere “rebellious phase” that one might go through, but a deliberate, wanton, and systematic effort to undermine, dismantle and destroy Hindus’ cultural edifice. The assertion and theme they choose to live by is that bad is good, and live to “live it up”.

Having a distorted view of sexuality and the social structure and practices either in the west, or the present day India (or of the social system in ancient India), these devotees of the god of rationalization are hell bent on sacrificing any decency, decorum and civility in either public discourse or in their private lives at the altar of their Zeus. In fact, they want ordinarily lesser mortals with the original pantheon to acquiesce, acknowledge and accept their deviant behavior. The first dictum of their rule(s) is to make such thinking and actions respectable and transform it into a highly moral act. If it were not a highly moral act, it cannot be legitimately advanced into the civil level. The crutches for above said people are "<b>liberalism and progressiveness</b>", the main scripture is "<b>Kamasutra</b>", fellow travelers and apologists are the so called liberals and progressive thinking “<b>Marxists, pseudo secularists and so-called erudite scholars from the west – The Intellectual Mafia</b>”.


The intellectual mafia along with their flock is aiming at cultural conquest in the short term, and in the long term inflicts fatal damage to Vedic/Hindu ideals of a social institution - marriage and family - by making Kamasutra look like Hustler and Penthouse of the 13th century. Let us examine briefly what Kamasutra is and its importance in a healthy relationship between opposite sexes and also what the rest of Kamasutra is about.



<b>The Kamasutra</b>

Kama is delight of body, mind, and soul in exquisite sensation. It awaken eyes, nose, tongue, ears, and skin, and between sense and sensed, the essence of Kama will flower. Kama Sutra can thus be translated as "Aphorisms on Pleasure." Like any other Sutra, this cannot be understood without proper commentary or interpretation.

The Kamasutra is a treasury of information and a tutorial about sexuality in ancient India. No other existing text, literary or scientific, comes even close to it in revealing the sexual attitudes of our ancestors. The Kamasutra tells us about the place of pleasure in the ancient scheme of things, especially vis-à-vis morality. It tells us what the ancients thought about the sexuality of women, marriage, homosexuality, adultery, and prostitutes - male and female. Our ancestors were obviously mature enough to follow, and discuss such texts in public without transforming into a pornographic visual/textual medium.

Kamasutra is not an original text. It is the oldest existing treatise of erotic love in India. It was composed in Sanskrit, the literary language of the classical period. Its authorship is attributed to Mallanaga Vatsyayana. According some sources, the ten thousand chapters of the Kamasutra were announced by Prajapati - a deity regarded as the god of creation. Mahadeva compiled the ten thousand chapters which in turn were compressed into five hundred chapters by Shvetaketu, son of Uddalaka and a teacher of philosophy. The Kamasutra was transcribed by Vatsyayana in the form of Sutras written in Sanskrit. Sutras are directives or short, maxims in prose, which are difficult to understand without a commentary. The treatises of Shvetaketu on which the Kamasutra is based, have been lost forever. It also heavily draws from works of other authors who preceded him. They are Babhravya, Suvarnanabha, Ghotakamukha, Gonardiya, Gonikaputra, Dattaka and Kuchumara. None of these works exist now, save Kamasutra of Vatsyayana <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>[1]</span>.

Apart from serving as a sex therapy guide, Kamasutra contains instructions for making messages unreadable - one of the earliest books on rudimentary encryption. It is also the first text to advocate “birth control” for prostitutes. Only about one fifth of Kamasutra (of whatever is left of Original form) is devoted to sexual positions. The rest of it gives guidance on how to be a good citizen and insights into men and women in relationships, and can be considered as a 13th century work akin to works such as <span style='color:red'>[2]</span>.

There is much more to Kamasutra that came out of Vedic India than plain vanilla sex. The word Kama refers to the pursuit of love or pleasure and not just sex. It is also said the three of the four purusharthas Dharma, Artha and Kama are of equal importance in the life of a human being. However the priorities attached to and pursuit of each follows the following order - Dharma being more valuable than Artha, and Artha being preferred to Kama. In order to attain a fulfilled and meaningful life, the pursuit of one goal should not hamper the pursuit of the others.

There is no shame or wrong in talking about sex or artistically representing it on temple walls, paintings, or writing about it, to teach and educate people about human sexuality. Healthy and wealthy minds and souls will then contribute to a vibrant society that is highly productive and there is nothing perverse in it, except for perverse minds. This is exactly what Kamasutra teaches.

Hindu divinities always come in pairs. They represent the ideal concept of man and woman working together as lovers, as mates, as partners in marriage, in love, in sex and in all aspects of our human life. Unlike Christianity or Judaism or Islam, Hinduism has never been concerned with "suppression of sensuous pleasure" or normal human sexuality. Body and spirit are always considered to be an integral of the whole personhood, and never separated w prejudice in favor of the spirit as was the case with western Calvinistic and Victorian moral values. It is said in Kama Sutra that “<i>rather than attempting to try and control the desires of the body by willpower, the Hindu aims at the self -realization through the whole being, mind, body and intellect</i>”.

However for Zeus's children in the Generation Vice, Vedic India's inhabitants, and tolerant, liberal, progressive Hindus do not read the original and entire Kamasutra but get fixated and obsess over 20% of it and consider quoting Kamasutra gives one license to indulge in any kind of erratic behavior. They rationalize every carnal desire they act upon on the selective understanding of Kamasutra that too written by so-called scholars such as Wendy Doniger [3]. They contend that since our ancestors were really over sexed, there is nothing abominable or morally wrong in following the foot steps of their convenient and new found ancestors of their liking. Generation Vice instead of following the advice in the very text they refer to when rationalizing, resort to depraved, lewd and licentious behavior.

The teachings of Kamasutra if properly followed will show one how to try and be content with one partner. However, Zeus tells the Gen Vice to sleep around and have as many partners as possible.

The short and effective method to realize godliness of Zeus for Gen Vice seems to be aping the west and copying the depraved behavior and debauchery couching their acts in progressive and liberal covers and labels.


<b>Social Institution(s)</b>

A simple definition of a “social institution” is a cultural value structure encompassing all values - positive, negative, or neutral - which relates to the social interaction of one particular normative segment of a culture. <i>(Refer [4] for a rigorous definition)</i>

Typically there are five social institutions in any culture; (1) Educational, (2) Political, (3) Religious, (4) Economical, and (5) Marriage and the Family.

These systems of values, are inextricably intertwined and their combination forms an interrelated system where change in any one institution results in corresponding and sometimes irreversible change and adjustment in all the other institutions. A symbiotic and systematic interaction - bonds the entire system and makes sure all the institutions are integrally involved. The institutions in western culture have been influenced powerfully by the Judeo- Christian values, particularly those values relate to females (Calvinistic and Victorian moral values), while ours is the eternal Vedic/Hindu ideals and underpinnings.

The institution of marriage and the family (re)structures the social mechanism through which replacements for society are groomed and reared. These replacements that are thus created are shaped so as to fit the social structure, with the goal of perpetuating the group. It is through this mechanism that the social values, norms (i.e., behavioral expectations), culture, thought patterns, language usage, social roles and responsibilities, and patterns of inter-genderal (i.e., sexual) and intra-gendral relations are transmitted, and absorbed by the new entrants.

<b>Conclusion</b>

Indian/Hindu society is changing rapidly and dramatically. The impact of modern media, especially television and Bollywood, is revolutionizing the relationship between the sexes. Women are demanding a much greater role for themselves - which in and of itself is a welcome sign - In both love and work. However on the flip side, sexual permissiveness and addiction to drugs and alcohol are all on the rise. The power balance between the generations has shifted. The young are no longer respectful of the aged. The social landscape is in a state of flux. Everything that is wrong with the Western culture has penetrated deeply into the urban areas and being openly adopted with open arms. Religion and religious values, and spirituality are in a process of decline while westerners are seeing the folly in their ways and adopting Sanathana dharma and Hindu way of life.

Turning a blind eye to all consequences, changes around them, the children of Zeus want to and insist on abuse and distortion Hindu culture, stemming from their lack of understanding and knowledge, to justify their insane acts and behavior and will eventually turn out to be social misfits.

For far too long the invading marauders and foreigners have debased, degraded Hindu icons, culture, literature, arts to instill an inferiority complex and then tried to supplant and replace them with their ideologies. The invaders are gone, but they discovered far too willing and complaint Hindus and Indians to continue their dirty work, in Intellectual Mafia and in Gen Vice.

<i>Is Generation Vice bent upon destroying the social institution of marriage and family in the name of liberalism and progressiveness? Life (and lifestyle) after all is about the choices one makes, for individuals and for society at large. Should Gen Vice choose to stick with their lifestyle, so be it, but do not drag Kamasutra to justify your actions and lifestyle.</i>

<b>References</b>

• 1. http://www.gautamindia.com/archive/Gautami...v/sexuality.htm
• 2. Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...684105?v=glance
• 3. Essential Kamasutra by Wendy Doniger - www.insight-books.com/TSX2/1591790654.html
• 4. http://www.politics.tcd.ie/kbenoit/cpi/i...tions.html

I found this interesting site..

http://www.adrindia.org/

I was reluctant to start a new thread for this myself & was going to post on "Miscellaneous Topics" so if admins think this is unnecesary please merge with that thread.

Over the long term ( if this thread survives <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) hopefully the discussion would focus on how we can make our electoral system better. Please post things related to electoral process reform ONLY.

Regards.