My father proudly boasts when talking about his reading vocation that he has completed a city branch library's collection by the time he is in 8th standard. It draws a lot of admiration especially from people who don't read a lot. To people who struggle to traverse from the first page to last page of a single book, it surely looks like quite an achievement. During my childhood I looked up on my dad as a source of inspiration and as a man of achievement. How ever, I cannot say I took up habit of reading by drawing inspiration from him. More it appears to me so, because despite having an admiration for my dad, our paths diverged by the time I reached fag end of teenage.
It may have something to do with genes as science folks call it or it may have something to do with samskaras as religious/spiritual folks call it. Some tendencies came to me from childhood and my dad proved to be a catalyst. My dad did his best to ensure myself and my sister read every story of every child publication every month like chandamama, bala mithra, bala ranjani etc., The habit got cultivated in me and my sister never ever inclined to read anything outside college curriculum. So I need to think it is attributable to samskara or tendencies. As a kid I did not have the ability to distinguish between good read and bad read. My mother had to give up her habit of reading novels and other weekly magazines as she got scared that I am reading them when she was busy. I read everything starting from old news paper to anything that is available. Once when we were on a trip to holy place called MahaNandi, my family locked the room and vacated the choultry with out realizing that I was missing from them as I was busy reading an old news paper I found in the back side of choultry. Did this reading help me anyway? I think it surely did. In one of the school internal exams our telugu teacher who is little adventurous formulated question paper with one question that is out of syllabus. I became overnight star in school and my telugu teacher canvassed for me. On another occasion I stepped into class X's room to meet our head of department for telugu to nominate myself for essay writing competition. Our head of department was asking another out of syllabus question "who wrote book named Svarganiki Nichenalu? If you answer this you are smart and if you don't answer this you are waste as he is the best telugu poet to have lived in this century" No one could answer. I took cue from "best telugu poet" and gave him the correct answer. At that instant I became his favorite student.
During school days I have spent lot of my pocket money on books. Everytime there is a book exhibition by Vishalandra publication or Rama krishna mission, I used to find some book or other that is worth buying. Many a time I cursed my small pocket allowance as it is not providing for buying all the books I wanted to buy. During my 10th standard and Intermediate, my madness reached its pinnacle. Most of my dad's salary went towards my book allowance. I purchased virtually every book available for 10th class students and some observers felt they are seeing a state rank student. It is a different story that I completely disappointed them. During my intermediate instead of spending festival holiday time with my parents, I travelled to Vizag as my uncle promised me some physics books he used during his MSc that may come handy for me. This is all academics so it did not people bother much.
Even though adhoc here and there I read books that I can lay hands on, real turning point was when I playfully stepped into college library's top floor where among list of abandoned books I found the book Svarganiki Nichenalu. Curiosity motivated me to read it to understand why the writer was named "best poet". Thats my first real encounter with work of Viswanatha Satyanarayana and it has gotten an ocean of change in me. Later I read novel "Cheliyali Katta", which depicts the limits a woman must not cross and the upholds Indian marriage at the highest level. By the time I read "Veyi Padagalu" I am a disciple. Today I have read more than 25 of his novels, all of his telugu dramas. It is a completely different matter that lot of people looked at me in disbelief that I spent over 6000 bucks to buy the prized possession of his writings.
In between, for a brief period I turned my attention to English classics like David Copperfield, Three musketeers. Irrespective of the language the well written book brings an 'aha' experience to me. The experience of learning a new aspect be it related to Indian traditions, lifestyle of ancient french warriors, mannerisms of British people of centuries ago. Cannot say every new learning accumulated induced a transformation but it induced a value ad at maturity. Surely some of this maturity came handy when faced with adverse situations in life. More importantly reading has helped me learn some skills that are very important in life like understand the difference between right and wrong, importance of character and how good deeds pay in long run and bad deeds cost in long run. Reading also filled the vacuum created in life when I had no access/less access to intellectual company of friends. It helped me also reflect internally on how in real situation I would have reacted if a similar situation as in book arises. Even though it cant be counted for as preparedness as every challenge in life I faced so far is unique one and path chosen as well is unique to my personality.
One book that stands out that influenced me althrough life is Ramayan. It is the Adi Kavya written by Valmiki and depicts life of Seetha. Yes true!! It is life of Seetha than Rama that Valmiki has written. He himself described its as Seethaayascharitam mahat. There are so many characters in Ramayan that are so Dharmic. Lord Rama who is an embodiment of Dharma. Seetha who is divine lady has shown how a chaste wife should be and kshama guna to be displayed. Laksmana is a special brother whom Rama describes as with out Lakshman I don't need Ayodhya, I don't need this world and even Seetha. Hanuman supreme devotee. Bharata who impresses me a lot for he has relinquished Ayodhya that has been given to his rule. Even Ravana himself is an ideal villain and Hanuma spoke highly of Ravana's stature which got corrupted by one wrong deed he committed. Every character is so ideal that's people say Ramayana is Adarsa Jeevanam. There are days when I used to roam in Koti/Abids area for searching good books on roadside shops. On almost every occasion I ended up buying one version/copy of Ramayan atleast as it pained me a bit to see such a great book to be placed on road platform.
In these years I have also come across some books that should not be touched, if reader is kind of person who easily gets influenced. I threw away certain books written by Tapi Dharma Rao, who tried to proclaim certain bad ideas with extreme explanation and derogatory remarks to certain customs. (excepting may be his commentary on VijayaVilasam for which he received Sahitya academy award) I have refrained from touching anything that has name Ranganayakamma on the front page.Her Ramayana Vishavriksham aimed at finding faults in Lord Rama, a flawless character and embodiment of Dharma. But there is a learning there too. People intended in finding faults can do so with any one. If one can find faults with Rama, what about mere mortals like us? A best seller book like Men are Mars and Women are from Venus failed to impress me. I knowingly purchased a book called maidanam by Chalam where he presented a case for infidelity. Naturally I am not an admirer of such things but curiosity dragged me into purchase of that book as I learnt that great book like Cheliyali Katta was written merely to counter arguments made by Chalam and to show how flawed they are. It is different matter that after first page I felt it too gross to continue reading.
I will conclude with a quote that "A good book is not the one which thinks for you, a good is one which makes you think"
Monday, September 5, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Shravana Kumara -- A Story from Ramayan
The story of Shravana Kumara depicts the dedicated service to parents. It dates back to time of King Dasaratha's rule.
A young Brahmin boy named Shravana Kumar lived in Dasaradha's kingdom. He is the only son of his parents, who both are very old, blind and weak in physical strength. As a dutiful son Shravana Kumar used to take care of his parents by providing with every need. He is very devoted son and as he knows his parents might face trouble if he leave them, he used to carry both his parents in a yoke/bangy (kavadi) where ever he travels.
One day his parents told him that they had become quite aged. They, therefore, wanted him to take them to the various places of pilgrimage : this could make them fully satisfied and give them abundant peace of mind. It is a typical Hindu belief that a pilgrimage to the various shrines and holy places undertaken in old age, purifies the soul and takes one nearer to one's Maker ere the icy hand of Death touches one. To a Hindu mind nothing is more precious, than becoming one with the great Maker of this Universe. As a dutiful son would have, Sharavana Kumar undertook the mission to satisfy the desire of pilgrimage requested by his parents.
Shravana Kumar was travelling through forest carrying his parents and due to length of journey and heat of summer his parents are thirsty and asked son to provide some water. Shravana Kumar placed the yoke containing both his parents under shade of a tree and went to nearest pond to fetch water. At that time King Dasaratha, who came for pleasure hunting expedition to the same forest, listened to the noise near the pond. He mistook the noise to be caused by a deer drinking water, shot an arrow in the direction of the noise which hit Shravana Kumara. Realizing the grave mistake committed the king rushed to the spot and found the brahmin boy reaching his last breathe. Shravana Kumar explained his parents position, requested the King to quench the thirst of his parents who are rested under the tree.
Dasaratha has fetched the water from the pond and offered the same to the parents of Shravana Kumar. Unable to hear the familiar voice of their beloved son and realizing that it is not their son who fetched the water for them, the old couple enquired the whereabouts of their son. When Dasaratha narrated how the hastiness of his action resulted in the death of their son, Shravana Kumar's mother died immediately of a heart attack. Sharavan Kumar's father died few moments later, cursing Dasaratha to meet similar death after being separated from his beloved son.
King Dasaratha who is childless at that point of time had mixed feelings. He felt sad for being responsible for the death of a family by his action. He at the same time reflected and felt happy a bit that in order for the curse to come true, he would be blessed with a son. Years later Dasaratha meets death when separated from his son Rama.
A young Brahmin boy named Shravana Kumar lived in Dasaradha's kingdom. He is the only son of his parents, who both are very old, blind and weak in physical strength. As a dutiful son Shravana Kumar used to take care of his parents by providing with every need. He is very devoted son and as he knows his parents might face trouble if he leave them, he used to carry both his parents in a yoke/bangy (kavadi) where ever he travels.
One day his parents told him that they had become quite aged. They, therefore, wanted him to take them to the various places of pilgrimage : this could make them fully satisfied and give them abundant peace of mind. It is a typical Hindu belief that a pilgrimage to the various shrines and holy places undertaken in old age, purifies the soul and takes one nearer to one's Maker ere the icy hand of Death touches one. To a Hindu mind nothing is more precious, than becoming one with the great Maker of this Universe. As a dutiful son would have, Sharavana Kumar undertook the mission to satisfy the desire of pilgrimage requested by his parents.
Shravana Kumar was travelling through forest carrying his parents and due to length of journey and heat of summer his parents are thirsty and asked son to provide some water. Shravana Kumar placed the yoke containing both his parents under shade of a tree and went to nearest pond to fetch water. At that time King Dasaratha, who came for pleasure hunting expedition to the same forest, listened to the noise near the pond. He mistook the noise to be caused by a deer drinking water, shot an arrow in the direction of the noise which hit Shravana Kumara. Realizing the grave mistake committed the king rushed to the spot and found the brahmin boy reaching his last breathe. Shravana Kumar explained his parents position, requested the King to quench the thirst of his parents who are rested under the tree.
Dasaratha has fetched the water from the pond and offered the same to the parents of Shravana Kumar. Unable to hear the familiar voice of their beloved son and realizing that it is not their son who fetched the water for them, the old couple enquired the whereabouts of their son. When Dasaratha narrated how the hastiness of his action resulted in the death of their son, Shravana Kumar's mother died immediately of a heart attack. Sharavan Kumar's father died few moments later, cursing Dasaratha to meet similar death after being separated from his beloved son.
King Dasaratha who is childless at that point of time had mixed feelings. He felt sad for being responsible for the death of a family by his action. He at the same time reflected and felt happy a bit that in order for the curse to come true, he would be blessed with a son. Years later Dasaratha meets death when separated from his son Rama.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
My Dad's Financial Theory
I always relied on my dad for any major financial decisions. In early days I used to inform even about paltry 2k loan given to my best friend as well to my dad. Even though my dad has not made best investment decisions in his own life, somehow I sensed accuracy of his judgement when it comes to my financial calls. Right from the day when to start my first LIC policy to when to plan for my car. Best of all came ofcourse during my house purchase. If he was not there to assist, I would not have purchased by house. The decision, when I look back now, has almost saved me from any probable financial crisis today. The timing was so right that it continues to be the best investment I made in my life.
There is how ever a peculiar way my dad manages his own finances. Given the fact that I became familiarized with finance through my job in a leading bank's IT department, some of my dad's decisions don't make whole lot of sense to me from investment/return stand point. His major strategy on investment is acquiring an asset through loan even though he has adequate cash at hand in form of debt instruments. For a person who is near retirement age, not much argument goes against his investments in debt instruments. But what amazes me is he finances his asset payment(assuming the asset is not having any tax benefit like a homeloan) via a bank loan and thus his net interest margin(NIM) is at least -6to -8 %. In layman's terms when his debt instruments pay him around 8-10% return where his bank loan eats up to 12-14% as interest payable. Only positive side of it is if the asset appreciates in its value then the negative NIM might get offset in time. If he employed his cash instead of loan, his appreciated asset would fetch him more profit.
His argument is simple. We lack financial discipline unless there is a liability enforced upon. We can easily pay back loan with out defaulting any installment but we do lack financial discipline to accumulate a lumpsum. For example he needs 5 lakhs to purchase an asset and he takes a bank loan by paying 12% interest for 3 years(despite having a 5laks cash in debt security) . He claims at the end of 3 years he would be in possession of asset and his 5 lakhs cash remains the same. But if he uses up his 5laks cash for asset purchase, he would mere have asset at his disposal at end of 3 years as he lacks financial discipline to accumulate the lumpsum of 5 lakhs back.
Practically what he says seems right to me even though from financial stand point it does not appeal to me. I made a very recent amend to this. When I had to fiance my car I did not rely on his theory. I instead emptied my pockets first by pulling out every penny in every bank account/FD. When I still fell short that's when I went to bank for loan. In this context my decision seemed right to me as car is all the more depreciating asset. Only thing I came to understand is financial indiscipline is catalyst that drives my dad's financial theory. So decided to be little more disciplined so that I can try and accumulate the lump sum I had before purchase of car. If I manage to do it I can say I had improved version of financial theory.
There is how ever a peculiar way my dad manages his own finances. Given the fact that I became familiarized with finance through my job in a leading bank's IT department, some of my dad's decisions don't make whole lot of sense to me from investment/return stand point. His major strategy on investment is acquiring an asset through loan even though he has adequate cash at hand in form of debt instruments. For a person who is near retirement age, not much argument goes against his investments in debt instruments. But what amazes me is he finances his asset payment(assuming the asset is not having any tax benefit like a homeloan) via a bank loan and thus his net interest margin(NIM) is at least -6to -8 %. In layman's terms when his debt instruments pay him around 8-10% return where his bank loan eats up to 12-14% as interest payable. Only positive side of it is if the asset appreciates in its value then the negative NIM might get offset in time. If he employed his cash instead of loan, his appreciated asset would fetch him more profit.
His argument is simple. We lack financial discipline unless there is a liability enforced upon. We can easily pay back loan with out defaulting any installment but we do lack financial discipline to accumulate a lumpsum. For example he needs 5 lakhs to purchase an asset and he takes a bank loan by paying 12% interest for 3 years(despite having a 5laks cash in debt security) . He claims at the end of 3 years he would be in possession of asset and his 5 lakhs cash remains the same. But if he uses up his 5laks cash for asset purchase, he would mere have asset at his disposal at end of 3 years as he lacks financial discipline to accumulate the lumpsum of 5 lakhs back.
Practically what he says seems right to me even though from financial stand point it does not appeal to me. I made a very recent amend to this. When I had to fiance my car I did not rely on his theory. I instead emptied my pockets first by pulling out every penny in every bank account/FD. When I still fell short that's when I went to bank for loan. In this context my decision seemed right to me as car is all the more depreciating asset. Only thing I came to understand is financial indiscipline is catalyst that drives my dad's financial theory. So decided to be little more disciplined so that I can try and accumulate the lump sum I had before purchase of car. If I manage to do it I can say I had improved version of financial theory.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Power of Friendship
World is going to celebrate friendship day in a week's time. I don't have admiration for reserving a day of the year for each relation ie., dad's day, mom's day, lover's day, son's day etc., But it does not really hurt me to write a small note abt power of friendship.
Friendship is one relation that gives an individual, to some extent, an opportunity to choose. We cannot choose our parents, we cant do so with our siblings. We just need to accept them as is. But in life we get opportunity to choose the friend we want. In my opening sentence I said 'to some extent'. Reason is even though it would appear to us we have ocean of opportunity with us to choose any as our friend, but a closer look reveals that we can only choose from the list of people we come across in life. One cannot choose to be friends with a sachin tendulkar or a ameer khan, if life does not provide him/her with an opportunity to meet them at all. Secondly, we want to be friend with a person but the relation only works when the other person also accepts the friendship. Thirdly, our samskaras do not allow us to make friends with some people even if we try to.
There goes an old saying that says 'show me your friends, I will tell who you are'. It means as one has choice on friendship, one would choose people who are similar to himself or herself, or one with whom one feel secure, or one who emancipates what one aspires to be. It does not necessarily means personalities match exactly but underlying fundamentals match. My feeling is that all my friends have whole lot of differences when it comes to personalities but what unifies us together is the commonality in the moral code.
Like none of my notes are complete with out reference to Ramayana or other epics. I will try to illustrate few friendships in our epics and how they made their impact to person's life. To begin with Ramayana, two brothers named Vali and Sugriva were there. Vali had a friend named Ravana and Sugriva had a friend named Rama. Sugriva prospered because of friendship to a good person and went on to become king of vanaras and Vali got killed by Rama. If we closely inspect, why Rama made friendship with Sugriva instead of Vali. Sugriva and Rama were in similar state when they met, Rama's wife stolen by Ravana and Sugriva's wife stolen by Vali. Further more inspection gives that Sugriva is a dharmic individual like Rama and so they were able to strike an accord.
In Mahabharata again were two brothers names Karna and Arjuna. Arjuna is close friend of Lord Krishna where as Karna made friendship with jealous Duryodhana. Karna's noble qualities faded by the company bad guys and thus had to meet death in the hands of Arjuna. Where as Arjuna prospered under friendship of Krishna. He gave timely advises like getting pasupata Astra from Krishna. It is Lord Krishna who motivates Arjuna before Kurukshetra war by teaching him Bhagavadgita.
Even in our life we would have noted we come across many friends at several points of time and not all of them stay for long. Not all of them make an impact as well. Good friends make a positive impact that we would carry althrough our life. Bad friends too make an impact albeit a killer impact that can nearly ruin the life.
To conclude, I am one such lucky individual to come across some nice people in my life who made deep impact to my life at different points of time. In gratitude I am sending this note to those wonderful people.
Friendship is one relation that gives an individual, to some extent, an opportunity to choose. We cannot choose our parents, we cant do so with our siblings. We just need to accept them as is. But in life we get opportunity to choose the friend we want. In my opening sentence I said 'to some extent'. Reason is even though it would appear to us we have ocean of opportunity with us to choose any as our friend, but a closer look reveals that we can only choose from the list of people we come across in life. One cannot choose to be friends with a sachin tendulkar or a ameer khan, if life does not provide him/her with an opportunity to meet them at all. Secondly, we want to be friend with a person but the relation only works when the other person also accepts the friendship. Thirdly, our samskaras do not allow us to make friends with some people even if we try to.
There goes an old saying that says 'show me your friends, I will tell who you are'. It means as one has choice on friendship, one would choose people who are similar to himself or herself, or one with whom one feel secure, or one who emancipates what one aspires to be. It does not necessarily means personalities match exactly but underlying fundamentals match. My feeling is that all my friends have whole lot of differences when it comes to personalities but what unifies us together is the commonality in the moral code.
Like none of my notes are complete with out reference to Ramayana or other epics. I will try to illustrate few friendships in our epics and how they made their impact to person's life. To begin with Ramayana, two brothers named Vali and Sugriva were there. Vali had a friend named Ravana and Sugriva had a friend named Rama. Sugriva prospered because of friendship to a good person and went on to become king of vanaras and Vali got killed by Rama. If we closely inspect, why Rama made friendship with Sugriva instead of Vali. Sugriva and Rama were in similar state when they met, Rama's wife stolen by Ravana and Sugriva's wife stolen by Vali. Further more inspection gives that Sugriva is a dharmic individual like Rama and so they were able to strike an accord.
In Mahabharata again were two brothers names Karna and Arjuna. Arjuna is close friend of Lord Krishna where as Karna made friendship with jealous Duryodhana. Karna's noble qualities faded by the company bad guys and thus had to meet death in the hands of Arjuna. Where as Arjuna prospered under friendship of Krishna. He gave timely advises like getting pasupata Astra from Krishna. It is Lord Krishna who motivates Arjuna before Kurukshetra war by teaching him Bhagavadgita.
Even in our life we would have noted we come across many friends at several points of time and not all of them stay for long. Not all of them make an impact as well. Good friends make a positive impact that we would carry althrough our life. Bad friends too make an impact albeit a killer impact that can nearly ruin the life.
To conclude, I am one such lucky individual to come across some nice people in my life who made deep impact to my life at different points of time. In gratitude I am sending this note to those wonderful people.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Morality
Morality is defined as sense of differentiating between what is good and bad. Moral code is the system of rules that defines morality.
Traditional system of morality prevalent in India is based on "fear" factor. A person does not steal money from other because of fear of police. A person does not indulge in infidelity due to fear of public ridicule. A person does not harm an innocent man due to fear of God. Fear factor is closely ties to the "result" one may get if indulged in bad deed. A thief would get imprisonment as result. An infidel individual would get disrespect in society as result. A person who does harm to an good man would get God's anger as result. The society functioned on this basic concept following morality. The moral code to be adhered to are defined in Smritis. The rulers at that point of time are well trained and learned in this moral code and most important of all they themselves adhered to this code. People had also fear that ruler would not pardon any one who did wrong. There was a King called Sagara whose son Asamanjasa used to kill boys by throwing them in to lake. King who got to know this threw his son out of his kingdom. So people in his kingdom very well know that if Sagara does not pardon his own son for wrong deed, he would not hesitate to punish any one else for wrong deed. Every one followed Dharma. Dharma was imbibed into education of all either by formal education or by moral stories shared by elders to children or by traditions enforced by family heads for every one to follow.
Times have changed!! They have not changed over night but changed over time and slowly. A group of disjoint people who named themselves as rationalists started to question the traditions. Not all of them are bad. Some of them had very genuine intent to change things that are outdated or out of context. Others, on the contrary, felt that everything old is outdated. They started disobeying traditions and continued to base their arguments on some flaws traditional system. Little did they realize that a system of such complexity cannot be built fool proof and little did they realize that new moral code they tried to propose had much more flaws than old one. Their system is based on very simple principle "do what you like". (it may not be as crude as I said but its the summary.) The Acharas enforced by elders are being denied stating they are old rules and we dont like to follow them. This sort of disregard for traditions by the individual's like/dislike rather than by merit started to deteriorate the morality of the society. Initial concept of "fear" started to fail as people started to become more reckless. The traditional concept works only if people feared police, society and more importantly God. Uniform moral code for all is replaced by individual customized moral code as per one's like or dislike. Irony here is person who does wrong deeds mastered the skill of giving justification for the deed to make it look good. No body wants to be called bad, isn't it? A thief who steal property of others, justified it as I stole from a person whose stomach is full or I stole to fill by stomach.
There is a person named ChitraGupta who keeps counting the sins of person and keeps a record. Sadly, he is not informed about this change of moral code and still counts the sins by old system. He was not informed that he needs to upgrade his system :-) So the result still catches up. Only difference is earlier when an innocent man is cheated by another and when the result of such deed comes in form of a misfortune to harmer or his family, then he used to understand that it is result of his sin. Now people dont understand that the misfortune is result of their sin and they think they have not committed a sin.
Traditional system of morality prevalent in India is based on "fear" factor. A person does not steal money from other because of fear of police. A person does not indulge in infidelity due to fear of public ridicule. A person does not harm an innocent man due to fear of God. Fear factor is closely ties to the "result" one may get if indulged in bad deed. A thief would get imprisonment as result. An infidel individual would get disrespect in society as result. A person who does harm to an good man would get God's anger as result. The society functioned on this basic concept following morality. The moral code to be adhered to are defined in Smritis. The rulers at that point of time are well trained and learned in this moral code and most important of all they themselves adhered to this code. People had also fear that ruler would not pardon any one who did wrong. There was a King called Sagara whose son Asamanjasa used to kill boys by throwing them in to lake. King who got to know this threw his son out of his kingdom. So people in his kingdom very well know that if Sagara does not pardon his own son for wrong deed, he would not hesitate to punish any one else for wrong deed. Every one followed Dharma. Dharma was imbibed into education of all either by formal education or by moral stories shared by elders to children or by traditions enforced by family heads for every one to follow.
Times have changed!! They have not changed over night but changed over time and slowly. A group of disjoint people who named themselves as rationalists started to question the traditions. Not all of them are bad. Some of them had very genuine intent to change things that are outdated or out of context. Others, on the contrary, felt that everything old is outdated. They started disobeying traditions and continued to base their arguments on some flaws traditional system. Little did they realize that a system of such complexity cannot be built fool proof and little did they realize that new moral code they tried to propose had much more flaws than old one. Their system is based on very simple principle "do what you like". (it may not be as crude as I said but its the summary.) The Acharas enforced by elders are being denied stating they are old rules and we dont like to follow them. This sort of disregard for traditions by the individual's like/dislike rather than by merit started to deteriorate the morality of the society. Initial concept of "fear" started to fail as people started to become more reckless. The traditional concept works only if people feared police, society and more importantly God. Uniform moral code for all is replaced by individual customized moral code as per one's like or dislike. Irony here is person who does wrong deeds mastered the skill of giving justification for the deed to make it look good. No body wants to be called bad, isn't it? A thief who steal property of others, justified it as I stole from a person whose stomach is full or I stole to fill by stomach.
There is a person named ChitraGupta who keeps counting the sins of person and keeps a record. Sadly, he is not informed about this change of moral code and still counts the sins by old system. He was not informed that he needs to upgrade his system :-) So the result still catches up. Only difference is earlier when an innocent man is cheated by another and when the result of such deed comes in form of a misfortune to harmer or his family, then he used to understand that it is result of his sin. Now people dont understand that the misfortune is result of their sin and they think they have not committed a sin.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Truth - An Analysis
Its not a new topic that has come to my mind all of a sudden. It is something that kept bothering me for over 20 years. Every single time I see a person hiding a plain truth or telling a lie, it used to come to my mind. Every single time I utter gruesome lie, the thought haunts me. Just trying to put what I had in mind.
I was told in childhood that speak truth always in school during moral education class. I studied story of Satya Harischandra who faced tough times in life but refused to utter lie. I was told story of Sree Rama who relinquished the throne to ensure his father's promise is not broken and sin of untruth does not haunt his father. It used to amuse me when the very people who taught me this lesson hide truth or tell untruth in practical life. I was confused if the lesson is only for preaching and not for practice, As I was growing up, I started to tell lies too. How ever my conscience initially used to tell me that I was doing wrong deed. Slowly every time my conscience points out a lie uttered, I started rationalizing it. Rationalizing stating that the lie was needed so as not to get blame, not to hurt someone, not to be put in a embarrassing situation. I backed myself up stating I am not cheating anyone by the lie, how ever I felt I was not right some where deep in heart. I also used to observe the lies others utter. I think it is not difficult to guess many a times if the person is speaking a truth or not, it somehow shows in the body language (either by the facial expression or overdose of gestures or by contradicting oneself in words or by giving excessive explanation when none was needed). I felt while telling the lie, the person is putting oneself under huge stress and it is shown in his/her bodylanguage. Still unsure why one has to bear that stress when plain truth is simple alternative.
From Scriptures:
1)
Mundaka Upanishad says
"satyameva jayate naanritam
satyena pantha vitato devayanah
yena aakramanti rshayo hi aaptkaamaa
yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam"
Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood
The divine path is laid by truth through which,
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled
reach the Absolute, where Truth resides.
Very Clear message that truth is the only thing that needs to be advocated and not falsehood. Truth alone leads us to Absolute.
2)
Veda says
'Satyam vada, Dharmam chara, Karmam Kuru'
speak the truth and practice dharma, perfrom your duty
A small story from Mahabharata. Dronacharya teaches above lesson to kauravas and Pandavas one day. Next day except Yudhistar/Dharma Raju every one else tell teacher that they learnt it. Yudhistar takes more than a week to learn this. When Drona asked reason Yudhistar replies that he used to tell small lies just for sake of it while playing or playfully. He can claim to have learnt the lesson only when he stops doing it and it took him sometime to do so. That's why his chariot stands 2 feet above the ground. When he uttered a lie in Kurukshetra war abt death of Aswathama, his chariot also comes to ground like all other people. Such is the power of truth.
3) We need not be told story of Harischandra who stood for truth. I am trying to read abt the dynasty of Raghu vamsa rulers in Kalidasas Raghu Vamsa Kavyam.
4)
On the contrary
satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah
Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.
Unpoleasant truth is not to be told as per smriti and this is being used very conveniently for telling lies. As smriti karta says in intial slokas, if smriti contradicts with Veda, Veda is to be considered right. Not sure if we can interpret this that way?
5)
Potana Bhagavatam says
VArijAkshulandu, VaivAhikamulandu, PrAna Vitta MAna bhangamulandu paliki bonkavachchu
Breach of promise is allowed in the cases of love, marriage, threat to life, property, or respect
In this padya Sukracharaya says situations where lies are allowed. Its a different matter that Bali chakravarti did not agree with this and keeps his promise to Vamana and thus attain permanent place in history
I was told in childhood that speak truth always in school during moral education class. I studied story of Satya Harischandra who faced tough times in life but refused to utter lie. I was told story of Sree Rama who relinquished the throne to ensure his father's promise is not broken and sin of untruth does not haunt his father. It used to amuse me when the very people who taught me this lesson hide truth or tell untruth in practical life. I was confused if the lesson is only for preaching and not for practice, As I was growing up, I started to tell lies too. How ever my conscience initially used to tell me that I was doing wrong deed. Slowly every time my conscience points out a lie uttered, I started rationalizing it. Rationalizing stating that the lie was needed so as not to get blame, not to hurt someone, not to be put in a embarrassing situation. I backed myself up stating I am not cheating anyone by the lie, how ever I felt I was not right some where deep in heart. I also used to observe the lies others utter. I think it is not difficult to guess many a times if the person is speaking a truth or not, it somehow shows in the body language (either by the facial expression or overdose of gestures or by contradicting oneself in words or by giving excessive explanation when none was needed). I felt while telling the lie, the person is putting oneself under huge stress and it is shown in his/her bodylanguage. Still unsure why one has to bear that stress when plain truth is simple alternative.
From Scriptures:
1)
Mundaka Upanishad says
"satyameva jayate naanritam
satyena pantha vitato devayanah
yena aakramanti rshayo hi aaptkaamaa
yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam"
Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood
The divine path is laid by truth through which,
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled
reach the Absolute, where Truth resides.
Very Clear message that truth is the only thing that needs to be advocated and not falsehood. Truth alone leads us to Absolute.
2)
Veda says
'Satyam vada, Dharmam chara, Karmam Kuru'
speak the truth and practice dharma, perfrom your duty
A small story from Mahabharata. Dronacharya teaches above lesson to kauravas and Pandavas one day. Next day except Yudhistar/Dharma Raju every one else tell teacher that they learnt it. Yudhistar takes more than a week to learn this. When Drona asked reason Yudhistar replies that he used to tell small lies just for sake of it while playing or playfully. He can claim to have learnt the lesson only when he stops doing it and it took him sometime to do so. That's why his chariot stands 2 feet above the ground. When he uttered a lie in Kurukshetra war abt death of Aswathama, his chariot also comes to ground like all other people. Such is the power of truth.
3) We need not be told story of Harischandra who stood for truth. I am trying to read abt the dynasty of Raghu vamsa rulers in Kalidasas Raghu Vamsa Kavyam.
4)
On the contrary
satyam bruyat priyam bruyat na bruyat satyam apriyam
priyam ca nanrutam bruyat esha dharmah sanatanah
Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.
Unpoleasant truth is not to be told as per smriti and this is being used very conveniently for telling lies. As smriti karta says in intial slokas, if smriti contradicts with Veda, Veda is to be considered right. Not sure if we can interpret this that way?
5)
Potana Bhagavatam says
VArijAkshulandu, VaivAhikamulandu, PrAna Vitta MAna bhangamulandu paliki bonkavachchu
Breach of promise is allowed in the cases of love, marriage, threat to life, property, or respect
In this padya Sukracharaya says situations where lies are allowed. Its a different matter that Bali chakravarti did not agree with this and keeps his promise to Vamana and thus attain permanent place in history
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Worth/Price of a person:
What is the worth of a person? Can we put a price to it? We often hear people boasting I am “priceless”. Are they really? What exactly defines the worth of a person? Let me try and present my perspective here. I am not talking about earning capacity of an individual.
A traffic police catches a bike rider with some missing documents. Bike man offers 50 bucks and policeman talks rules. Bike man raises it to 100 bucks and still police does not relent. When the amount is raised to 200 bucks, policeman gives a soft warning and let go. So it takes 200 bucks for the policeman to give in. An officer in government cadre would say 200 bucks is too small amount, he might give in at 2000 bucks. A privileged official might give in at 20k bucks and people at even higher level might give in at much higher amount. So there is a price defined for every person.
Don’t get me wrong I am not talking about government official and bribe only. A auto rikshaw wala might observe that passenger has left his bag in auto. If the bag contains merely clothes, he might dutifully return the same to passenger or deposit at a police station. Will he do the same if it’s a wallet that he finds? Will he return the same if it’s a briefcase that contains a lakh?
Essentially the point is the real worth of a person is the price at which he bids good bye to the ethical standards defined. It need not be merely in monetary terms. It can be in kind or other variety of means. One fellow falls for girls other falls for exciting gadget that gets paid. One person gets scared of the power and gets rid of ethical standard. Every one has his/her own reasons to get compromised. Nevertheless that is a price for each person.
I don’t mean to say the class of individuals who don’t succumb, come what may, do not exist. They do exist. But they exist in very less quantity and they are also slowly getting extinct. Like save tiger campaign we really have a need to run a campaign to save these special individuals from getting extinct.
A traffic police catches a bike rider with some missing documents. Bike man offers 50 bucks and policeman talks rules. Bike man raises it to 100 bucks and still police does not relent. When the amount is raised to 200 bucks, policeman gives a soft warning and let go. So it takes 200 bucks for the policeman to give in. An officer in government cadre would say 200 bucks is too small amount, he might give in at 2000 bucks. A privileged official might give in at 20k bucks and people at even higher level might give in at much higher amount. So there is a price defined for every person.
Don’t get me wrong I am not talking about government official and bribe only. A auto rikshaw wala might observe that passenger has left his bag in auto. If the bag contains merely clothes, he might dutifully return the same to passenger or deposit at a police station. Will he do the same if it’s a wallet that he finds? Will he return the same if it’s a briefcase that contains a lakh?
Essentially the point is the real worth of a person is the price at which he bids good bye to the ethical standards defined. It need not be merely in monetary terms. It can be in kind or other variety of means. One fellow falls for girls other falls for exciting gadget that gets paid. One person gets scared of the power and gets rid of ethical standard. Every one has his/her own reasons to get compromised. Nevertheless that is a price for each person.
I don’t mean to say the class of individuals who don’t succumb, come what may, do not exist. They do exist. But they exist in very less quantity and they are also slowly getting extinct. Like save tiger campaign we really have a need to run a campaign to save these special individuals from getting extinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
