Weekend Reading – Served Differently

How exactly can a child be spiritual? Indoctrination is a terrible thing.

What a stupid article in the Atlantic! It says about the riots : “The killers were dressed in saffron scarves and khaki shorts, the uniform of the RSS, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (Organization of National Volunteers)”! How many such pictures did we see? And what is new about anything that he has written except usual leftist exaggeration?

I used to think that socialists were well meaning but clueless, but recently I have to say “Don’t trust anything that any socialist says”.

I have to be rude, but shame on you, Shantanu, for linking to such an article.

I agree with Indian here. For too long we have been inward looking hoping that the world will see value in our values and respect us. At best we have been playing defense. OTOH the dictum of mullahs and missionaries is : What is mine is mine, what is yours should be free for evangelisation. Let us keep playing defense while getting enlightened about others’ offenses, in this case how media is painting us in the far off lands. Should we really keep playing defense? For how long? Will it not be too late?

I didn’t say or even remotely imply that only pro-RSS articles should be linked. The Atlantic piece crosses all limits of stupidity.

That said, I didn’t realize you were intending to highlight what western media were thinking. I thought you were implying that the article had substance. So, sorry for my harsh sentence, then.

FitW, would you like to write a post on RSS and their positive aspects? Haven’t updated your blog in a while. 🙂

Its a question, how can he/ she knows about the available choices if children dont visit anything? If parents had choose church over temple where will parents take them for the first blessings and routine prayers of almighty? Of course Church! Or Vice-versa

Now on the question of indoctrination. I agree indoctrination is strong words cannot be used for prayers. One side we are busy saying all God are same and next we talk about choices. Great unity! Do proves many needs religion.

My take – What ever God we pray, prayers remain the same. Praying to God is seen as thinking positive and optimistic approach towards life, doesnot matter who one prays. Its going to be answered. Prayers are strong tool, if intensely carried from within heart, also not necessary to pronounce any God in prayers. Talk to yourself in the prayer and see the magic.

Because *a* family would only visit *a* church or a temple or a mosque …. not all of them …. so, the child is not offered any choice, and hence it is indoctrination.
*******

Well, there are some 30+ different religions and faiths listed on wiki. Would it be indoctrination if a parent missed out on a few of those religions and didn’t attend their worship places with the kids, as the child is not offered a complete choice? Church, temple and mosque cover only 3 religions, and that still leaves out 27+ religions practiced in the world.
And is there any proof that being exposed to all religions in the world would prevent indoctrination? Or that Hindus who only visit temples are indoctrinated? Your approach would imply that parents not only be aware of these 30+ religions, but make an effort to expose their kids to all of these religions and their tenets, which is likely to leave a kid confused and is quite impractical for most of the population, many of whom struggle to get three meals a day.

BTW, most parents would find this very hard to take, but

“Is raising a child under one set of rules or guidelines that the parents think are best, indoctrination? ”

Yes, that is indoctrination of your value system into a helpless child, who can not reason with you, who holds you in high esteem (I trust) and who both loves you and fears you.

I would expect parents to explain the logic of their value system to their kids, while enforcing their “rules” – and be prepared to re-evaluate these rules, if the child can come up with a logical reason why those rules should be changed. At least, that is my position with my kids.

Cheers

@ Nanda:

I am astounded. You actually agree with me on something. : )
Just kidding.

While I agree with you about the “space” given to learners in the vedic religion context, I would not agree with you that morals can not be taught without reference to religion. This is something that religions and religious teachers use as a very useful (deemed) axiom to further their causes, but this is just not true.

Morality can and does exist independent of religion (and I can argue that religions are actually the cause of immorality) – else, I can take this to an extreme and say that children are natural, born killers? Who do not kill only because of the influence of religion?

Cheers

@ Nanda:

The way I see it is that Ram was not a particular champion of morals, given how often he chose his personal advancement and gratification over doing the right thing. The only stellar thing that he did was to ensure that his father’s vows were kept, despite the old man urging him to take the kingdom by force.

Else, a litany of immorality:

1. Killing Vali while hiding and without engaging him in direct combat or issuing a direct challenge to him.
2. Listening to only one side of the story – Sugriva’s – before dispensing “justice” to ensure that Sugriva’s (ex-Vali’s) army will be on his side.
3. Allowing a traitor, Vibhishan, to take refuge in his camp. Even if you allow that Vibhishan was a conscientious objector and not just a smart man who wanted the throne, it was still wrong to draw down on his knowledge of Lanka and a common war deceit.
4. Not allowing Hanuman to rescue Sita, instead sending innumerable people to their death in a battle of personal egos.
5. Humiliating Sita, after freeing her from captivity – I wonder if (in theory), an agni-parikhsa can distinguish between rape and seduction. And, if it was rape, what would Ram have done? Abandoned Sita?

Hmmmmm, not much morals there, eh? Please do not accuse me of lampooning or vulgarising the epics again. The questions are honest, and I have never found any cogent answers to them.

====================================

Most of the great physicists of the last century were atheists – although, one remark of Einstein is sometimes construed to be a recantation of atheism.

Gautam Buddha was probably the greatest atheist philosopher of India, although I know that this will be hard to prove or disprove.

Other noted atheists:
V S Savarkar
Sigmund Freud
Many of the old Greek philosophers, including Diagoras and Theodorus
Socrates is also widely held to be an atheist
Karl Marx
Fredrich Engels
Bertrand Russell
John Dewey
EV Ramaswamy (Periyar)

Most of Western Europe is now also post-religious in its culture and society.

Cheers

@Patriot,
You got my question wrong. I asked for an example of a child who was ‘brought up’ as atheist.

“EV Ramaswamy (Periyar)” – LOL !! ya, Prabhakaran, Raj Thakarey would have made it to your list if they were atheists.

Unlike what you see from Ramayana, when I teach my child I see the good things from Ramayana. for ex, how he respected elders, how the brothers loved each other, how he accepted surrender of enemy’s brother, how he gave respect to even a poor citizen, how he respected Sabari irrespective of caste, how he fought violent people and how he protected peaceful rishis, how he kept his father’s words etc.

Ram’s actions have been discussed millions of times since ages and there have been countless interpretations and multiple moral values have been derived from them. It would be worthwhile to know Ramayana in full. For ex, you probably didn’t know that Vali gets half of his enemy’s power in fight, which warrents the enemy to attack hiding. May be Karl Marx and EVR (LOL !!) will go face to face and get kicked.

Btw, In that aspect, since you mentioned you have searched many places, please try the following works, they might guide you in your quest. Please don’t think I’m trying to push the responsiblity on you, similar to what you thought when I said I had read Sanskrit version of Mahabharatha in an earlier discussion.

1. Vivekatilaka of Udali Varadaraja
2. Tatvapedika by Maheshwara Thirtha
3. Ramayana Bhushana by Govindaraja (very good one)
4. Ramanaya Tilaka of Nagesh Bhatt
5. Ramayana Siromani of Bansidar
6. Amritha kataka by Madava yogi
7. Commentary by Periyavachan Pillai (i love his style)

We can continue this after you read these. Else it would make sense to start with EVR (LOL !! sorry i couldn’t stop) before going to Ram.

Patriot @ comment # 17:
“Looks like choice is a bad thing for you!! ”

Look who’s ascribing comments to me now!! LOL.

Yes, I did read your comment but I remain unconvinced as you haven’t really shown that exposure to different religions/belief systems while growing up does not lead to indoctrination, and didn’t quite answer all my questions. But we can agree to disagree, since it’s your personal opinion/belief system on how you raise your kids.

@Kafir
-Continuation.
Before its mistaken, my comment was not based on valmiki ramayan. As per valmiki ramayan, vaali himself got convinced with the dharma behind a human kshatriya like Rama killing a vanara without directly engaging the vanara.
It makes for wonderful reading the above commentaries I’ve posted in #24.
It will be a complete highjack of topic to continue vaali-vadam.

COming to the original topic, my position stays same, ie children cannot understand moral values without the parents touching religion.

@ Patriot: Re. Shri Ram’s treatment of Sita Mata, I have some material that has been waiting to be converted into a post for more than two years (thanks to PS who painstakingly compiled it for me)…

This has prompted me to revist that information and write a post on it…hopefully soon.

***

All: Thanks for a very engaging discussion…Nanda, thanks in particular for the list at #24..I should look up some of these books.

@ Nanda:
“You got my question wrong. I asked for an example of a child who was ‘brought up’ as atheist.”

Yes, I did get this aspect wrong – but, I think this is a tough ask that you propose. I only know of people who are declared atheists (some among my friends, too) but I can not be certain of your requirement. I can say I have been an agnostic/atheist since the age of 12 …. but that was my choice, not that of my parents.

“EV Ramaswamy (Periyar)” – LOL !! ya, Prabhakaran, Raj Thakarey would have made it to your list if they were atheists.”

Well, I did put in Periyar after a lot of thought but finally decided to let him be in the list – at least, he provided you with some comic relief!!!! I do not agree with Periyar’s vandalism and his “political” tactics, but I did believe that his atheism was genuine, and not a political stunt.

“you probably didn’t know that Vali gets half of his enemy’s power in fight, which warrents the enemy to attack hiding.”

I was certainly not aware of this and none of the versions I have read include this thesis. All the versions that I have read either justify the killing of Vali as justice for Sugriva and/or on grounds of realpolitik.

Even if this was true (sources?), I do not understand how it was Ram’s fight? Except to garner a army? At poor Vali’s cost?

And, am happy to read the books that you have recommended – I trust that these are available in English (or Bengali) translations?

@ Kaffir:

“It has been a while since I read Ramayana, but wasn’t it Sita herself who refused to go with Hanuman? Besides, Ramayan needs to seen in the larger context of Vishnu and Lakshmi reincarnating themselves to take care of evil Ravan. Which means, a battle with Ravan till his death was inevitable.”

True, I read the above, too that Sita asked for Ram to rescue her, instead of Hanuman carrying her off. But, Hanuman goes back and recounts the entire story to Ram – who could have insisted that Hanuman go back and rescue Sita – and, if Ram insisted, Sita could have hardly refused then, could she? (Pativrata and all that) But, Ram does not insist and instead marches on Lanka. So, at least, a sin of ommission, not commission.

And, as far as the avatar part goes, nowhere in the Ramayana does either Ram or Sita claim to be avatars – that was post-facto rationalisation, then?

“It was Sita who decided to end her life because Ram didn’t want her.”

Even worse – punish the victim.

“Regarding rape, Ravan had a curse that his head would explode and he would die if he tried to rape a woman.”

Yes, I have always thought that this was a very convenient curse in the Ramayana – don’t remember if there was ever a mention about who cursed Ravan? And, if Ram knew about this curse, then the poor man must have been worried about seduction, if he asked for agni-pariksha, right?

To paraphrase Nanda, I always raise curious questions, while overlooking the obvious stuff!!!

“Look who’s ascribing comments to me now!! LOL.”

LOL …. fair enough. But, not sure which questions I did not answer.

@ Indian:

Fair enough – I trust that the majority of parents (this is not about hindus) do what you are saying that they are doing. I was just not so sure.

Cheers

@Patriot, questions are good. 🙂

I’m not defending Ram, as I mentioned in my earlier comment. My philosophy is to take what’s good, and there’s plenty of good in Ram’s actions, again, as I mentioned earlier. If brothers today showed even a fraction of love for each other as Ram showed for his brothers Bharat and Lakshman, that would be enough.

As for Hanuman carrying Sita, here are her words:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry377.htm

And here are Ram’s words when he meets Sita after slaying Ravan:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry488.htm
Excerpt: “And thou art hateful as the light
That flashes on the injured sight.”
Which implies that the fault lies with Ram (injured sight) while Sita is pure as light. So, Valmiki is pretty clear here that it is Ram who is laboring under his shame and is at fault, and Sita is spotless.

As for their avatar, what I know is that Ram and Sita were not aware of their special status and it was only when Sita tried to burn herself that Ram found out his nature. Both of them were destined to live like normal human beings, whereas the other avatar, Krishna, knew his special status and the purpose of his avatar. I don’t know if Ram knew about Ravan’s curse or not, and to repeat, he did not ask for agni-pariksha – at least not in Valmiki’s version.

@Patriot, I used to labor under the misconception that Ram asked Sita to prove her innocence after he defeated Ravan, and I’ve wondered about it when some say that Ramayan promotes wives acting like doormats, but on re-reading parts of Ramayan lately (I first read it in my childhood), I’m finding that Sita was actually a very strong and independent character who made her own decisions. So, I can only attribute it to some misconception and misunderstanding of Valmiki’s Ramayan by people which propagated that image of Sita and/or wives.

It’s a complex tale with many nuances, and yes, it will probably be found lacking in some aspects if today’s societal standards are applied to it, but it is by no means as simplistic and reductionist as it is made out to be by some.

@ Kaffir:

Thanks for the link to the English translations of the verses – if those verses indeed be correct, then Ram’s behaviour was even more despicable than I originally thought.

As, I said before, this was a war of personal egos (and machismo) where countless were led to their death so that Ram could fulfill his vow.

I wonder what King Janak would have said (if he was alive) to Ram on finding his daughter so insulted by the husband she chose and loved?

And, I never said Sita was weak – in fact, in Tulsidas’ Ramayan, Sita refuses the second agni-pariksha and says instead to her mother (Earth) that she should receive her if she is without sin and she is tired of being insulted and being asked to prove her innocence. (Maybe, this was an allegory for how all of us treat this Earth?)

The whole point is the ascribing of the title “Maryada purushottam” to Ram – I take that as a personal insult to all males who work to protect their wives, given his treatment of Sita.

Cheers

@Patriot: It seems that you have not understood Lord Rama correctly. He is the epitome of what a perfect ruler should be. Being a King, his primary duty is towards the State and the “People”. That is why he took such an action of sending his wife away, for which many accuse him. Nowhere in the Ramayana it is stated that Rama hated his wife, committed any atrocities on her. On the contrary he loved her. But his duty towards his Country and his subjects was supreme.

He went on exile, without a whimper of protest, for fourteen years just to fulfill his father’s wishes. Even Dasharatha would have liked if Rama disobeyed his wishes. But Rama is the embodiment of all that is good. He never asked Sita or Lakshmana to accompany him. It was the affection of the wife Sita and brother Lakshmana who insisted they accompany Rama. Now how Bharata outshines everybody else with his devotion to his elder brother is made clear in Ramayana.

Through the narration of this Ithihasa Valmiki has tried to show the people of Bharata varsha the best possible way to live and conduct themselves. It is easy to pinpoint certain aberrations in anything and in every good person and good deed. But think 1) Who can let go the Kingship without even a whimper of protest 2) Which ruler will even think of satisfying each and every one of the subjects, even if it results in sending his wife away. (Note that he did not take any second wife after sending Sita away. The only accusation can be that he treated Sita badly. But even Sita did not think that way. Further it was their personal life against which the wishes of the subjects reigned supreme).

But present day morals are different. Myself, my wife, my children are important, in that order. The rulers rule the country for themselves, their kith and kin and cares too hoots for the subjects. Hence, if you look through the present day morals whatever Rama, Sita, Lakshmana, Bharata did were wrong. Epitome of stupidity !!!

A Malayalm saying: The prayer is when the deluge comes myself, my wife and a goldsmith (for making jewellery to my wife) only be saved.

@ Kaffir:

Sorry, I am still thinking of Tulsidas’ Ramayana ….. if Valmiki’s version is the correct one, then you are absolutely right.

@ KSV:

Thanks for your comments – but, was Sita not a subject in Ram’s rajya, as well? To send her off, while pregnant, without any recourse, on the basis of gossip/slander is justice? Or is it that Sita did not have any rights, being Ram’s wife? And, how was Sita being sent away relevant from the well being of the kingdom perspective, too?

This is what I could not understand.

And, re: Ram’s exile – I highlighted that upfront as a stellar deed.

If you say that Ram was a mixture of good and not-so-good deeds, I would agree. I cavil when it comes to calling him the ultimate personification of goodness. That is my limited point.

Cheers

PS: BTW, I appreciate how open we are to dialogue, even on “sensitive/emotional” topics. If we were discussing Mohammed’s life and loves, there would have been plenty of calls for my head, by now! : )

This husband-wife is again an example of how united they should be even while taking bad decisions. Both Rama and Sita were convinced that it was the right thing to do, though it may not be the happiest thing for their married life.

Nanda, I’m not sure if any of the popular versions (Tulsidas) actually mentioned that both were united while taking the decision, or thought that it was the right thing to to. Besides, if you use “bad decision” in one sentence, and “right thing to do” in the next, that’s contradictory. 🙂

First, the decision to banish a pregnant Sita to the forest was taken unilaterally, and Sita was not consulted regarding what her views were – either as a subject or a wife. Second, the decision was conveyed and executed indirectly through Lakshman, without giving Sita a chance to have her say. Third, I’m not sure that Sita was happy or satisfied with that decision.

I think most people will agree that Ram’s decision to send Sita away based on what he heard from a citizen was wrong and one would have to go to great lengths to justify it. In my opinion, that doesn’t take anything away from Ram’s other positives, but I have no problem admitting that this specific decision of his was wrong and he went overboard in executing his duties as a king. He was a human being, not a perfect being.

Madhu Kishwar has written a couple of interesting essays on this issue, which a google search should turn up.

Nanda,

Thanks for your comment. Yes, I do understand that Ram was performing his duty as a king and his actions are meant as an example (or a standard or an ideal to strive for) for those who today claim to be public servants and leaders, in how to conduct themselves and perform their duties.

@Nanda:

Also, my subsequent questions on Vali stand.

cheers

@ Nanda:

I realise that I am looking at this from a “modern” perspective, but here are my further thoughts on this:

1. A commoner says he will not keep his wife in his house for sleeping with some one else (presumed adultery) even if Ram were to keep his.

2. Is this not slander on the character of Sita? Does Sita not have recourse to any justice in this matter

3. Does public order not demand that slander and calumny, the vilest of our verbal crimes, be punished rather than be pandered to?

4. I can not see how the above makes Ram flawless – seems like a miscarriage of justice to me, instead.

5. “But I realise that a one person’s gossip can turn to a nasty thing if untouched. Thats where ‘Rama Rajya’ stands aloof from any other rule in the world ever. Thats why he is flawless. This is a lesson for Leaders and aspiring Leaders, including Freedom team.”
So you would advocate punishing the subject of the gossip, however innocent, instead of the gossiper?

6. And, finally, if you are arguing that Sita being Ram’s wife loses her recourse to justice because Ram is the king, then that is another matter, leading to a different course of arguments.

My understanding is that Valmiki’s Ramayana ends with Ram returning to Ayodha – there is no exile of Sita in his epic?

How does the washerman’s wife enter into the picture? Because she *may* have committed adultery?

And, corrupt politicians loot the taxpayer’s money, because that may be their objective in entering politics – the best business for otherwise illiterate people?

Hence, pointing out Ram’s deeds to them may not help – they may only focus on the killing of Vali, you know. : )

Cheers

What I understand is the, questions from atheists on Rama’s actions may be genuine. But the conflict of understanding is not in Rama’s actions, but in the underlying basics of Dharma. Sita’s episode is a great example for this. Even in modern day politics, if a leader has to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the public trust on the party, whether he should do it or not? It is absolutely fine to ignore minority’s mistrust, but afterall thats what differentiates a leader and an un-disputed leader 🙂

@ Nanda, Patriot, Kaffir, KSV, Indian, Others: Thanks for a thought-provoking and stimulating discussion.

As I had “threatened” at #50 above, I am now moving comemnts related to this particular topic on to a new thread.

I have excerpted the relevant portions from all the comments on this topic to this new thread…If I have missed something, pl. alert me via email or leave a comment on to the new post.

Pl. continue the discussion on Vaali-Vadh, Maryadaa Purushottam Shri Ram, Sita Mata, Agni Pariksha, Raj Dharma etc through the comments section on this post.

On Marayada Purushottam, Sita Mata, Agni Pariksha and Vaali Vadh

Thanks a lot for keeping this blog alive!

http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptism.html

The actual certificate, if you wish to forward to anyone!