Seeking my spiritual roots...

In this the third part of the verse commencing saha nA vavatu , we see the focus shift from asking for something for the self (protection, material objects) to asking for enablement to do something with the knowledge gained. This verse is translated in many places as “may we do our studies with vigour or energy”. I humbly believe this can mean more than just asking for enthusiasm / vigour / energy for our studies, and to go deeper in to the meaning and import of the same. What is the purpose of education, or seeking? For most of us for most part, it is a means to a livelihood. At some point, maybe it goads us as we strive to understand ourselves and our place in this cosmos. Even for evolved and detached souls like Adi Sankara, or Ramanujacharya, or in more modern times Swami Vivekananda or Swami Chinmayananda, the fruition of knowledge is in its application and in transferring it further to other people; in short, in making the world a better place. Study or knowledge is not an end in...

In the first part of this verse, there is a prayer for protection. Once this basic need for survival is assured, we move on to asking for things which we want - maybe material objects, maybe name and fame - for a better life; we have moved on from mere existing to living life. A common opinion seems to be that worldy objects or material gains are to be shunned, if one wants to progress spriritually. I believe there is a fine nuance here, between desire for worldly objects or objectives ( अर्थ  - artha ) as a means to an end, as against a desire for material objects as an end in themselves. That to me makes all the    difference in how we approach this philosphy. In the Bhagavad Gita (BG 7.16), the Lord talks about four types of devotees who pray to him(“ caturvidhA bhajantE mAm janAh ”  - the first type being people in distress (“ ArtA ”) and the second being those desirous of material objectives (“ arthArthI ”). The first part of the verse (“ saha nAvavatu ”) addres...

This is the first phrase of a prayer many of us would have recited in our schools. The entire verse is in the dual case, denoting the teacher and the student, and asks for benediction on both of them as they progress on the path of knowledge. I find the order in which the benediction progresses to be very interesting. It moves from the quotidian to the sublime. The very first phrase - saha nAvavatu - is a very basic ask. It asks for protection for the two. What is this protection against? It could be physical danger or it could be disease or disability, or as I believe, it could be anything that prevents the teacher and student from progressing in their endeavours. 

Is the word of a teacher (or any other position of authority) beyond questioning? Does questioning necessarily lead to rancour, or worse enmity, between the two? Many of us would have learnt and recited the verse commencing “ saha nA vavatu *”. It is the opening verse of the second part (brahmAnandavalli) of the taittiriya upaniSad.  It is an invocation by the teacher and taught to ensure that both benefit from the learning process. Here, I’m going to focus on the last part of the invocation - mA vidviSAvahai . In literal sense, it prays that “there be no enmity between us two” (teacher and taught).

Its been more than a year since I wrote anything here. First work and then the world caught me up in their grip, and my writing came to a standstill. Recently I came across this aphorism, and it hit me hard - I have to keep moving! Stillness of the mind is a much celebrated aim in not just Hindu philosphy, but practically every evolved system of thought. But does stillness of the mind necessitate stillness of the body? A still body commits no action - and that is not something to be celebrated. 

One of the most quoted statements from Hinduism’s corpus, vasudhaIva kuTumbakam is often given as the compelling argument for Hinduism’s inclusive nature. I’ve recently (and with some sadness) also come across “explanations” of this phrase that take away the unqualified nature of its acceptance, and impose conditions on it. This group of people seem to believe that the unqualified nature of the phrase can be construed as a weakness of the philosophy, and hence the need to trammel it so as to not show Hinduism as a weak religion. To me, nothing could be further from the truth. When we look at the full verse as it appears in mahOpaniShad 6.71, the broad sweep of its all encompassing embrace is quite apparent. अयं बन्धुरयं नेति गणना लघुचेतसाम् । उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् ॥ ayam bandhurayam nEti gaNanA laghuCEtasAm | udAraCaritAnAm tu vasudhaIva kuTumbakam || “This is a kinsman, and this is not” is enumerated by small minded people; for the large hearted ones, the whole world is...

To ask someone who disagrees with a dominant narrative to “go away! (to Pakistan, for instance)” has been the preferred retort of late.  But ... what is it that is being asked to “go away”? 

 I have always been intrigued by mangala shlokas, or the closing verses of a ceremony for wishing welfare and / or benediction. These are plentiful in the corpus of Sanskrit, and interestingly, most of them are for wishing welfare for the world at large, not just a particular individual. Below is the first part of one of the most common such verses, used at the closure of almost any kind of auspicious event. स्वस्ति प्रजाभ्यः परिपालयन्ताम्  ( svasti prajAbhyaḥ paripAlayantAm ) न्यायेन मार्गेण महीं महीशाः ।  ( nyAyEna mArgENa mahIm mahIshAh ) "May the rulers protect & nourish the earth, for the welfare of the people, through the path of justice". Who ever said this first (and unfortunately, the antecedents of this shloka are lost to us today), felt it necessary to: direct the rulers (the verb case used is imperative), specify protecting & nourishing the world not for themselves, but for the welfare of the people, specify that this needs to be done through the path...

  What is the purpose of debate? Indeed, do we need debate, or would the world be a better place if everyone just agreed on everything? NO!!!! That is an irreversible path to an Orwellian dystopia. And no debate means an eternal status quo, so no progress in thought, action, technology, culture, even civilization. In short, a dying, if not already dead, society. But are all forms of debate for good? Why is so much ill will generated when there is difference of opinion, or of belief? The Bhagavad Gita, as for many questions of life, provides a guide. The whole opus (or at least the first few chapters) is a debate between an unconvinced student (Arjuna) and a patient teacher (Krishna). But more than that, there is a clear statement by Krishna on what kind of debate is the superior one.

 An ancient yet never outdated prayer that resonates, and is required to resonate, more than ever today .... असतो मा सद्गमय (asatO mA sadgamaya) तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय (tamasO mA jyOtirgamaya) मृत्योर्मा अमृतं गमय (mrutyOrmA amrutam gamaya) ( BrihadAraNyaka upaniSad 1.3.28 )