Greatness

There is something I have always wanted to drop, apart from the numerous catches I did drop to gain the notoriety as a fielder of 'Indian' calibre; drop names. I became acutely aware of it after Slice of Life columnist, V.Gangadhar wrote about it a few months back. Ever since I have been on a celebrity hunt. And now my hunt ends. I now know someone famous or rather someone I know is now famous.

Mahima, one of my closest friends and neighbour has taken her first steps to 'mahima' with her own 'Art Exhibition' and more importantly, an article about it in 'The Hindu'. The Hindu, as you know is next only to the Gita as far as authority goes in the TamBrahm household. That she would have her own art exhibition so soon doesn't surprise me. I have seen her draw and cherished her many works to know that it was just a matter of time. A charcoal piece she drew for me when I was leaving home for hostel (undergrad) is a trophy I can never forget. I treasure her work just as much as I prize her thoughtfulness, the thoughtfulness evident in making her art exhibition for a cause.

My earliest memories of this wonder girl goes to a time when she was 1 or 2. I used to drop my school bag in their house before rushing out to play Backyard Cricket. And I remember that I used to call her 'Maggi', which used to irritate her no end. (Sadly that name fizzled out). Dropping names, I can brag that I knew this girl as she threw her first tantrum and have seen her become the person she is.

I can't possibly express my disappointment at not being there, with her, in her moment of glory to share her joy. Neither can I express how proud I am of her success. First step, I assert. For I know there are several more things she could do and will do.

Iraq

Hatim Kathiria, an Indian in the US Army became the latest casuality in the Iraq war; the second Indian to do so. Well! I guess we should, at least now go beyond jingoistic nationalism, both Indian and American and mourn the loss of a young life for an unjust cause just as we mourn all those who died in this war. May we learn from these deaths the price we are paying for the war effort.

Read more about Hatim Kathiria here

Another historical marker in the war is Cindy Sheehan, mother of a dead soldier camping outside President Bush's Texas residence hoping to ask him a simple question, "Why did my son and so many other sons die in this war? For what?". No surprises that Bush did not meet her and there was a slur campaign to make her look like a hysterical mother; a raving lunatic. I am not surprised either that there has been growing support for Cindy and a new 'Bring 'em back' campaign has been launched, capitalising on her new celebrity status. (It is not her fault... that is the way things work)

Updates on the Cindy campaign in http://www.meetwithcindy.org/

Conversation

I know not many (of the few who do visit this site) will want to go through a longish post but I couldn't resist writing of this conversation I had with a Hindu theologian in Yahoo Chat Room. Well! I was surprised that there was another person in the hinduism chat room who didn't come there looking for a lay. I was faking to be a Aussie Philosophy student who knew a little about hinduism.

me: am bored n actually interested in hindusim. thought ppl in the room wud be talking abt it
D: good. yes u wana learn abt philosophy
me: yeah! sort of
D: ask me ur Qs
me: ok! for starters why do u have so many Gods? I accept tht all the Gods r manifestations of the one true god...but y?
D: no no... not manifestation
me: does it not cause trouble... as in who is the better God?
D: no...Look we have one GOD who is supreme and he can do all thingsbut u know what, the devotess of HIM ask for his service... so there are many demi GODS. Get the GIST?
me: i don't quite accept the demi-god theory.see God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He does not need sidekicks to do his job, right?
D: yes, absolutely rite
me: i think the the demi god thing is a human fabrication
D: no no demi GOD theory is even in Vedas. go check it
me: yes! my precise point... does being in vedas make it the irrevocable truth. wat is the origin of vedas. ofcourse i am not a theologian
D: well well vedas are eternal. and not composed. that is why there are the highest texts of truth. coz no error in it
me: vedas r not eternal... n definitely not god send. none of the scriptures of any religion are. bible is a human effort, koran is one too
D: well its not a scripture....Vedas are eternal. there is a proof for that.
me: infact i think hindu 'philosophy' is best explained in the Bhagavad Gita
D: yes.. its a summary of all vedas
me: Thats surprising. Gita went directly against some of the vedic injunctions. mainly rituals (I was goading him)
me: but wat interests me is the Philosophy of Karma and Maya. i like Advaitha. i like Shankara's philosophy n think everything is unto Him; everything is Him. Karma; that the future is conditioned by the way you live now, what you do now, what you think, what your acts are, your ethics is the philosophy of the masses.it is suited to the present age
D: well! Adviata is not correct though
me: u c, when u get into philosophy, being correct is a very subjective thing.it doesn't matter.infact there is nothing like 'correct' or incorrect'
D: yes one shud know the correct. if there is no correct it wud mean there is nothing incorrect...
me: true. they r simply viewpoints
D: well if so, there would be no concept of GOD/ TRUTH/MORAL or so
me: as long as it gives a set of ethics - dharma, every way is a right way
D: then it can lead to chaos as to there is no rule...
me: i didn't say no rules. ppl choose rules they like... with faith tht it is the right rule
D: when u set a rule.. u obiviously are speaking absolute truth and not relative. if its relative then its not a rule
me: not really... say there are 3 rules and 300 ppl and 100 ppl follow rule 1, 100 rule 2, and another 100 rule 3.everyone follows some rule. No anarchy. as long as there is no or little conflict bet'n the faiths it is fine
D: well ...ur missing a point. what if the rule 1 clashes with rule 2.... it will lead to chaos between set 1 and 2
me: tht is why i am saying tht there are no absolutes. all conflict in the world is b'coz ppl think tht only their faith is true and all other faiths are stupidly, even criminally wrong
D: well then lets debate and come to conclusion
me: there is no debate. there is no conclusion. jus as gita says... just as numerous rivers flow into the same ocean, all faiths lead to same god
D: not really interpreted properly
me: if everyone in the world follows this there is no war or conflict
D: difference is basic
me: and acceptable
D: if there was no evil at all then evil thoughts wouldnt have come
me: i think the hindu philosophy is good b'coz no other religious thought has proclaimed tolerance and emphasised it.
me: if u think islam or christianity is evil... then evil is in u
D: how can Jiva be Brahman?
me: why don't u tell me why it can't be?
D: only because... of "pratyakshaya pramana" and also "said in GITA/Purunas/Vedas".only that Shankara interpreted it wrongly
me: i am not versed in sanskrit and i accept my knowledge of hindusim is shallow
D: yea! then how did u come to conclsuion that sankara is rite
me: i did not say Shankara is rite... did I? I quote... i jus said i liked it and it appeals to my intellect
D: look! liking will only come after ur convinced with it.. so which means its rite
me: which again comes to my previous position - u must be proud tht Hinduism encouraged 'tolerance' and as learned followers of hinduism you should embrace this fact. pls do not say 'My way or the Highway'. u seem too insistent on right n wrong; black n white
D: yes
me: which i feel is very against the fundamental principles of hindusim
D: huh?
me: the fundamental principle of hinduism is 'tolerance' - again quoting Gita - there are some who reach God by Bakthi, Gnana or Karma yogas (paths) but they all lead to the One Supreme
D: well selfless act can be achived with duality also
me: i do not say duality is wrong. all i am asking is accept tht jus as duality is right so can advaitha be right
D: how can 2 statements .. which contradict each other be true
me: truth in this philosophic pt of view is not a scientific certainty. it does not follow like that if the earth is round it cannot be flat
D: we gotta debate to know the truth
me: is there anything to debate... every philosophy has its pluses n minuses and u believe otherwise. i am not supporting advaitha or for tht matter any one philosophical viewpoint. i agree tht for all i know dvaitha may be more precise than advaitha. but does it matter. embrace everything but follow one path tht u feel passionate abt. there is a tamil poetry in my desk tht says (and I quoted Yaathum Oore)
D: just a poem
me: wat do u mean by 'jus a poem'
D: do peom say what truth is
me: can't u see tht u r trying to gauge things by not wat it says but who says it
D: yes. ofcourse
me: does being in a generally accepted book means it is right
D: nooooo not at all. only authorless text can be authorative
me: who decides wat authoritative text is. how do u know there is no author
D: well there is a logic behind why vedas are said authorless
me: may be i should correct ur idea tht while Vedas as u know it has an accepted author. it is only said that seers had 'visions' of the veda as it was - tht is where the eternal thing comes in to play but there is a mortal hand in it
D: nono u are mistaken my dear. The receipeints of vedas are just seers to it. they did not create it and the seers themself have said, we are just recepients of the unauthored vedas
me: yes i accepted it, i am jus saying tht they were mortals who saw the vedas in some form
D: so now Vedas becoem the highest authorative text as its flawless
me: so.. lemme ask u as conjecture - wat if the seers wrote it themselves and said they were unauthored texts. would u or i be able to prove tht they were indeed unauthored. jus for sake of argument
D: ok for such arguments.. are raised and being answered. answer for that... its just not said by one seer... its by thoushands and all are seperated by a considerable locus. they see/hear the Vedas and thats why its called "SHRUTI"
me: i believe if u look objectively... it doesn't matter if they r unauthored or authored. wud the light bulb not glow if it was i instead of edison who invented it
D: its not that it came from recent times... its known from unknown time
me: i am leaving now - but i'll send u a couple of files. again i do not vouch for the authenticity of the views of the author and am sending it b'coz i found it interesting
D: well i only read authentic texts. i shud be convinced that it is authentic.. else no point
me: should it be signed by God
D: coz i will waste my time
D: vedas speak of puranas.. and hence these authored texts are authentic to me. puranas are written by Lord himself. like he preached GITA
me: i do not believe Gita was spoken by Krishna during the war jus as i do not believe tht puranas were written by the God himself as a sort of pastime
D: yes i undertsnad why u dont belive. coz u see the WORLD as just a illusion
me: i am afraid ppl r so much into who says wat that they forget tht the important thing is the message. as i said before wud it matter if Krishna did not speak the gita
D: Yes
me: maybe some philosopher 1000 yrs later thought it wud be nice to use Krishna as the mode of the message. message is the core. there is truth only in the message not in the messenger
D: well u dont get the GIST
me: u r so GULLIBLE...i have to laugh