Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Karma Yoga

(I came across this essay I had written many years ago, when I was first getting to grips with the concepts of karma yoga. It summarises my understanding of the gist of the opening chapters of the Bhagavad Gita. I felt I should preserve it here. It has only been lightly edited from its original form, so please excuse any childish writing)


Karma yoga is the process of yoking oneself to God while continuing to perform actions. Really, karmayoga is at the core of any spiritual process, but on its own is incomplete and meaningless. Karmayoga is a perfection of other yogas such as jnanayoga (yoga of knowledge) and bhaktiyoga (yoga of devotion). An understanding of karmayoga can be made only with knowledge of the laws of karma. Some jnanayoga is thus required for an understanding of karmayoga.

Karma is nature’s simplest law, understood by spiritual amateurs and even atheists. All actions produce reactions. What goes around comes around. Good actions produce good results and vice versa. One reaps the fruit of the seeds he sows. Just as man is bound to gravity, he is bound to enjoy or suffer the fruits of his actions. Even his apparent inaction is an action which will bear results.

One is thus bound to this chain of karma, acting and facing the reactions. At the end of his life, he takes rebirth according to his karma (deeds). One is thus bound to the cycle of birth and death, as well as that of action and reaction. To achieve release, or liberation from this material bondage, and attain spiritual realisation, one must break free of the cycle of karma. Doing so requires a deep understanding of one’s actual existence as a spiritual entity separate from the body.

One needs to understand, or rather, realise, that he is beyond the conception of the body and its associated limited, material personality. He is an eternal being, independent of the body, and he does not belong to this material world. With the proper understanding of this fact (which is a truth so profound and deep that actually realising it is called self-realisation), one finds himself trapped in material surroundings, and does not identify with his body. He knows that this ‘person’, say, Mr A.K. Chawla, BA Pass, is just another material living entity in the macrocosm of the universe, possessing a peculiar mix of the three modes of material natures (gunas) which give him particular tendencies to act in certain ways. Knowing that his actual self is transcendental to the three modes of material nature, and that there is nothing in this fleeting material world that he wants, the sage loses interest in the fruitive activities he was previously engaged in. Attaining spiritual realisation and seeing his true nature of infinitude, he sees the relative futility of work, which is transient. He realises that he is unborn, immortal, and has no mother, father, family etc.

He then understands that all that he did was in fact done through the modes of material nature. He was all this while a puppet in a play, but a puppet with a free will. He was an actor who had choices and could desire. Nonetheless, the decision-making and even the desires were somewhat dictated by the modes of material nature. Thus, although technically all these action of the person were carried out by the modes of nature, the soul thinks himself the doer, by associating with the material personality.

Upon self-realisation, one becomes transcendental to the modes of material nature, i.e. nistraigunya. He is therefore now in an awkward position, knowing his eternal situation, yet continuing his existence in the transient material world. In deference to the material creation, and also to lead people on the right path, he continues to work, although there is no need for him to engage in material duty. Nonetheless, he carries out his duties to perfection, fulfilling the role of his character he has to play in the material world.

The most important difference is the mode of consciousness in which he is now working. He is doing whatever he is doing as a mere duty with no desire as he has already transcended the material plane and finds nothing desirable there (naavaptavyam). Thus he has no selfish interest, and no attachment to the fruits of his actions, which don’t affect him in the least. Success and failure, joy and grief, pleasure and pain, life and death, are all the same to him who has become non-dual, or nirdvandva. He knows that the dualities concern only his material personality and the results of his actions are inconsequential to his actual being.

Therefore, although he is engaged in actions, the fruits of his actions don’t affect him when he acts this way, and he as good as does not act at all. The person now realises that he is an actor in a play, and does not get attached or involved to his character’s deeds. This never-ending play, or movie, is creation. Its producer is God or one of His potencies, the scriptwriter is dharma. However, the actors do not always act according to the script, but are instead directed by the modes of nature. An actor who knows he is an actor is a better actor than one who thinks he is Hamlet or MacBeth, and gets involved without knowing the script too well, or even the fact that there is a script. An actor who associates with his character and body, believing he is the character and not an actor, will act (pun unintended) with the selfish interest of his character.


In this highly complicated way, the multitudes live out their existence in this endless, fascinating, complex and dynamic play, never realising that the are merely actors in a play, with a separate off-stage existence from their characters.

Friday, March 21, 2014

In Defence of the Caste System

I believe in meritocracy. A person’s actions should be a bigger determinant of his success in life than his birth. I believe social mobility is a sign of a just and developed society.

Then why the distasteful title? No, it’s not a typo. I didn’t intend to write ‘In defiance of the Hindu Caste System’ or something of the sort.

The caste system as it has become today is abhorrent. It has become a blight on the Hindu religion and sets an unparalleled example of institutionalised discrimination.

The caste system is the easy target with which atheists and missionaries attack the Hindu religion. It is the cancer of Hindu society that has driven millions of its followers into the arms of Islam, Buddhism and Christianity. These religions only had to offer prospective converts the dignity of being treated as human beings to entice them to leave the faith of their ancestors.

Despite this deserved opprobrium, there is a positive philosophical side to the caste system that deserves a hearing. Before it was corrupted into an elaborate protection racket for the socially privileged, the caste system embodied a sophisticated system of relative morality.

I avoid using the term moral relativism, which has earned a bad reputation from being used to justify unjustifiable cultural practices and imply that all cultures are equally moral. I focus instead on whether morals for individuals are absolute or relative.

A little thought on the subject will show that morality cannot be absolute, and is highly dependent on context and circumstance. Most of us will agree that a rich man stealing from a shop is far more immoral than a poor hungry man doing the same, even though both of them have committed exactly the same act. Modern courts consider motive and circumstances in sentencing.

Prescriptive rules of absolute morality such as the Ten Commandments would thus seem to be a poor moral guide for the complexities of the real world. They are useful to teach children about basic morality (e.g. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt honour thy mother and father), but fail in the most basic complications. Should a soldier in war not kill? Should the child of a serial murderer honour her father?

The morality espoused by Jesus transcends the more primitive absolute morality of the Old Testament. For example, the golden rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” perfectly encapsulates the subtlety of morality, and implies that it is relative. What I may have others do unto me is different to what you would have them do unto you.

Jesus could hardly endorse relative morality more explicitly than in Luke 12:48 where he says:

“But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

The caste system divides human beings into having four types of dispositions, and prescribes societal roles, moral rules and different levels of accountability based on those dispositions. In theory, this is an enlightened concept that recognises that all men cannot be judged by the same scales given their vastly different abilities and intelligences.

A good parable that illustrates this is an episode from the Indian epic, The Mahabharata. When the righteous emperor Yudhishthira was in contention for becoming crown prince in competition with his immoral cousin Duryodhana, the minister at the time tested the two in a criminal proceeding. Four men had been found guilty of conspiring to commit a murder, and the two princes were asked to give their sentences to the criminals. Duryodhana went first. His judgement was that the established penalty for murder was capital punishment, and all four murderers thus deserved to be hung.

Yudhisthira’s response was more nuanced. To the surprise of the court, he asked for the castes of the four murderers. Conveniently for an epic tale, they were each from one of the four castes: a Brahmin (priest), a Kshatriya (warrior), a Vaishya (trader), and a Shudra (labourer). 

He considered that the Shudra, while guilty, was illiterate and hence not as guilty as the educated Vaishya, who was better educated in moral matters. He therefore sentenced the Vaishya to a jail term four times longer than that of the shudra’s. For the Kshatriya, whose very moral duty it was to protect citizens, his crime of murder was particularly heinous, and deserved a punishment quadruple that of the Vaishya. As for the Brahmin, whose moral duty was to spread morality and peace itself, his crime was so vile, that he referred him to his own guru to judge his punishment.

It can be said that Yudhishthira’s caste-based judgement applied Jesus’ principle of “to whom much is given, from him much is required” some 5 millennia before Christ.

This subtlety of relative morality in the caste system was again illustrated during the great war of the Mahabharata. In the course of the war, a Kshatriya king, Virata, lost his son in battle. Breaking the news to his wife with tears in his eyes, he told her that as a Kshatriya woman, she should be proud that her son gave his life in war fighting for righteousness. The next morning, he returned to the battlefield and continued to fight, as was his duty as a Kshatriya.

Some days later, the Brahmin chief general Drona was informed his son had died in battle. His reaction was extraordinary. In his anguish, he ceased fighting, dropped his arms, descended his chariot, and starting meditating. His sudden abdication of responsibility while being chief general was a dereliction of his duty.

His actions reveal that in choosing to take up arms and fight on the battlefield, Drona was not doing unto others as he would have them do unto him. Virata killed others’ sons, accepting that he and his sons were fair game to be similarly killed. While aggrieved, he continued to perform his duty when he lost his son. In contrast, Drona, who was a Brahmin at heart, responded to the killing of his own son in a way he would not have expected from the many fathers he commandeered. It was hence immoral of him to kill others’ sons in war if he was unable to accept his own son being killed without becoming completely emotionally incapacitated. Or as Jesus put it, “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged”. Drona was judged by that judgement, and was found wanting.

In ancient India the caste system was central to this relative morality. Different castes had different moral guidelines in consideration of their duties. For example, hunting and eating meat were considered acceptable for Kshatriyas as they need to be skilled in violence to employ it in the defence of righteousness. As individuals who would risk their lives to defend their communities, Kshatriyas were allowed a more risk-taking nature and to indulge in activities such as high-stakes gambling. Such behaviour was strongly discouraged or forbidden for the other castes, particularly for Brahmins, who were expected to shoulder society's burden of preserving, developing, and distributing society’s intellectual and spiritual capital. Seen as less intelligent and engaged in menial tasks, Shudras had fewer rights but also fewer responsibilities.

The caste system only really became the problem it is today, when individuals were forced to belong to a caste based on their birth, and were stuck to it for life. The fundamental problem with the caste system is its heredity and rigidity.

Throughout its history, India has risen and fallen with these moral principles. Every time society judged an individual's deeds (karma) to be above his birth (janma), India has thrived, and it has decayed every time the reverse was true.

India was first united as one country by Emperor Bharata, who gave India its native name of Bhaarata.[1]  A key story of Bharata’s reign was that he so elevated action over birth, that he overlooked all of his sons and anointed someone else as his crown prince. This is especially extraordinary given it occurred many millennia BC, when states and kingdoms around the world were seen as mere possessions of kings, not commonwealths of the people.

The roots of the downfall of Indian civilisation can be traced to when Bharata’s descendant Shantanu and his son Bhishma guaranteed the throne to a person who was as yet unborn, purely on the basis of his birth. Down the line, Dhritrashtra then conspired to give the throne to his son ahead of his more competent nephew. Ultimately, this led to the epic war of righteousness that was the Mahabharata, which ended with Kshatriya society largely wiped out.  

In the era leading up to the Mahabharata war, the ills of the caste system had begun to set in. India had become a society where the thumbs of aspirational lower-caste citizens were cut off to preserve privilege for the upper classes.[2] It was a classist society that refused to accord the low-caste born son Karna the respect he deserved as a Kshatriya, despite being one of the greatest warriors of his time.

It is interesting to note that India’s classical golden era was under the Gupta king Chandragupta Maurya, who was also not born into royalty.

Interestingly, this conflict of action and birth, karma and janma, will manifest itself again in the upcoming 2014 Indian general election. The contrast in its expected Prime Ministerial candidates could scarcely be more poetic. One the one hand, Rahul Gandhi is expected to try and join his father, grandmother, and great-grandfather to become the fourth Prime Minister of India from the Brahmin Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. His mother is the leader of the ruling Congress Party, and his only political achievement to date is his surname. In his ten years as an MP, he has given very few speeches and only recently gave his first detailed interview. He and the Congress Party represent the power of janma, with its inherited wealth and status. Representing karma in this election is the Prime Ministerial candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. Born into a low-caste family, Modi sold tea to make a living in his youth and rose from obscurity to become India’s most recognised and respected chief minister. Since 2001, he has presided over a period of unprecedented economic prosperity in his state by delivering reform and competent governance.

There could not be a starker choice in this election between janma and karma.

It is not difficult to see that until Indian society once again elevates karma above janma, it will remain mired in the material and spiritual poverty in which it currently dwells.




[1] According to traditional Indian history, it was not the British who first united the Indian subcontinent. The word for India in native Indian tongues is Bhaarata, a patronymic of Bharata.

[2] For non-Indian readers, this is a reference to the story of Eklavya, a brilliant lower-caste archer. He was an ardent admirer of the guru Drona, and had taught himself archery by mentally accepting Drona as his guru. When they chanced upon a meeting, Eklavya asked Drona what he would demand as part of his traditional dues as a guru. To everyone’s shock, Drona demanded his right thumb, thus crippling his ability to shoot. It is said he did this to prevent Eklavya from outshining his favourite pupil. 
There is a good blog post with good illustrations of the character here: http://rainbowstampclub.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/new-stamp-from-india_28.html

Friday, August 28, 2009

Can India ever make its version of Rule Britannia?

Amongst patriotic songs, I doubt there would be many in the world that would rival the famous Rule Britannia! in pomp, splendour, and sheer patriotism. Rule Britannia has it all: a proud, imposing melody, an affirmation of its fundamental values, religious overtones, upfront intent to dominate, and an in your face superiority complex that would undoubtedly make today's politically correct Britons cringe with embarrassment. It arouses a type of upbeat nationalistic pride that is rare to find in these days of pacifism and globalisation when national identities are said to become less relevant. It can raise goosebumps even on the arms of foreigners. I find it amazing a nation blessed with such an arousing patriotic song could choose the relatively plain God Save the Queen as its national anthem, which could be as representative of a tiny non-descript kingdom as of an erstwhile empire.

I have often thought about whether India can ever lay claim to a national song that arouses the same kind of cultural pride. I believe the India we know today never will, as a very different kind of patriotism dominates there. Considering patriotism has its etymology in patria, or fatherland, it is perhaps more etymologically appropriate to describe patriotism in India as matriotism. India is always a motherland, a mother, Bharat Mata.

One can easily discern two distinct strains of patriotic expression. At the first level, there is matriotism, the Vande Mataram type, the patriot sentimentally relates to his land of birth as a provider, and nourisher, and cherishes her as a son. This stage of patriotism can exist in isolation, with no need for an external stimulus. This sort of sentiment easily ties in with the next stage of a more militaristic patriotism, or nationalism, where the patriot vows to protect his motherland with his blood. At this stage, an external opponent is needed to repel or to defend from. The third stage, which has been absent in India in recent millenia, is when nationalism rises to imperialism and patriotism is related to the subjugation of or domination over other nations. At this stage of nationalism, which would now be decried as imperialism or even colonialism, there is little room for a mother, or motherland. A mother can give birth, nourish, and be defended, but an invading or subjugating mother doesn't make for romantic imagery in a patriarchal world. It is probably at this point that the fatherland comes to play.


The fatherland variety of patriotism has been more prominent in Europe. The Germans, traditionally a proud marital race, still refer to their land as the Vaterland, as do many Europeans. As indicated earlier, the Latin word for fatherland patria is the basis for the word patriotism in English and virtually all European languages.

About India, it can be said that the pacifist culture of non-violence and Gandhism has led to a deplorable dearth of militaristic nationalism. Since violence is abhorred under the Gandhian ethos and not even promoted for self-defense purposes, militaristic nationalism is restricted to the military, who are expected to risk their lives only to defend existing borders and not cross them, or at least retreat back to them after the war, even if it ends in victory. The Kshatriya culture is dead in India outside the military.

As a result there is a corresponding dearth of nationalistic songs that arouse a more jubilant, dominating kind of patriotism as opposed to the tear-jerker types that we have in abundance.

The closest we have are some songs from Bollywood war films, and even they are heavier on the matriotism, or else focus on camaraderie of troops and their missing home etc. For example, we have Desh Mere from The Legend of Bhagat Singh, with its lyrics of defiance and rebellion. Being made for Bollywood films, these songs are ultimately intended for a particular scene in a film and are not very general. In most cases, they depict the independence struggle, when an enslaved nation was trying to break its colonial chains, or else the defensive wars post-independence, where India neglected to use its huge military victories to demand significant reparations or even territory in Kashmir which has been illegally occupied. As such there have been no events in the last 1000 years of Indian history that could inspire unfettered nationalistic pride of the Rule Britannia kind.

To make an Indian Rule Britannia, Rule Bharata, one must either go back tens of thousands of years into the past, and glorify the unification of Bharatavarsha under Emperor Bharat, which was the last time a united India ruled the waves, or else imagine the future when a reawakened (or resurrected depending on your point of view) Bharata will arise, and again be a dominant force in the world, shining effulgently once again in its ancient wisdom and heritage...


Wednesday, May 7, 2008

कृष्णाक्षराधारितत्रिश्लोकाः

सर्वपाठिनेभ्यो नमः
इयं कविता मया रचिता त्रिश्लोका । अस्त्वियं रमनदा नः
_____________________________________________________

अहो रमणीयान्यक्षराणि हरेर्नाम्नः कृष्णस्य।
वक्रतनुककारो नृत्यन्श्यामसुन्दरगात्रमिव दिव्यम्।।१।।


लट इव ककारकस्य- ऋकारमात्रः खलु केशवकेश इव
भाद्रपदकृष्णाष्टम्येव तदर्धषकारोऽर्धचन्द्र इव ।।२।।


गोपालस्य धेनोः पादचिह्नस्त्रिलोकमोहिनिमुरलिश्च सखे णकारः।
अश्रुतोऽपि दृष्टोः केवलं शुभशब्दः कथं हर्षतो नेत्रौ।।३।।


-१० माघ ५१०७ कलियुग

Monday, March 17, 2008

Tibet and Ahimsa

For someone following the Tibetan struggle for independence for a while now, the latest spate of violence was a major shock and an alarm bell of sorts which seems poised to revolutionise our perceptions of the Tibetan issue and the nature of the conflict. The world had almost taken it for granted that the economic and military might of China had for all practical purposes sealed the struggle and crushed the rebellion. Even otherwise, the Tibetans were too peaceful to rise up in arms, to abandon their Buddhist faith of non-violence, and 'stoop' as low as to resort to violence. Or so we thought.

This recent outburst of violent protests now begs the uncomfortable question the largely politically correct media and intelligentsia avoids: Would Tibet have ever received the international attention it is receiving now had it not resorted to violence? Had it continued on the much celebrated path of non-violence and forgiveness, of ahimsa and क्षमा (forgiveness), quietly suffering, would the world be listening to Tibet's anguished voice? Would China have been forced into damage control and started the PR exercise which it is doing now?

The Dalai Lama is a highly respected spiritual figure in the West and his message on non-violence is widely touted to be the answer to world peace and inner happiness. Yet today, even the most devout ahimsa-follower has to admit that violence has finally done for Tibet in one day what non-violence couldn't do in half a century. The world has woken up to Tibet, but only by Tibet abandoning the message of its undisputed spiritual head.

These lingering questions remain to be answered by the Dalai Lama and other devout ahimsa believers, especially Indians and the Indian establishment: Is this violence on the part of the oppressed Tibetan people acceptable as a form of self defence or is violence in all forms a sin? While His Holiness the Dalai Lama has not endorsed the violent actions of his followers in his homeland, he hasn't condemned them either, and it will be interesting to see if he does either as events unfold.

This outbreak of violence in the most non-violent of lands, Tibet, should bring about discussion about the legitimacy and morality of violence in Buddhism and general ethics, in the context of self defence. Most of the world's religions endorse violence as a last resort for the protection of sovereignty and as a self defence. Lord Krishna Himself led the Mahabharat war to uphold dharma. Buddhism on the other hand, along with today's fashionable ideologies, however, in particular Gandhism and various left-wing ideologies, demonise all forms of violence, and Tibet ought to feature prominently in any arguments either justifying or attacking these views.

Would the Buddha today also tell his Tibetan followers to quietly endure their pain with ahimsa and shun violence? We know with near certainty that Mahatma Gandhi would. The venerated father of modern ahimsa had advised the Jews to non-violently resist the Holocaust, and present themselves to the Nazis to be killed until the Nazis finally felt ashamed and repented. One could say the Tibetans have effectively heeded the Gandhian advice, for want of any other alternative, and the results are there for all to see. The Tibetan race is on the path to cultural annihilation. It will not be very long before the Tibetan language is extinct, and the centuries old traditions of the fabled Himalayan nation get condemned to mere footnotes in history books.

The sad truth is that such ideology has weakened another proud people, and we all know that today there is no hope of Tibetan autonomy or religious rights before Tibet as we know it is extinct. No 'force of truth' has the political courage to stand up to China, especially at a time when the US is on the brink of a recession , and the world is looking to China to keep the world economy afloat.

The noble dharma and the middle way is all but defeated yet again.