Arrival - the gaviṣṭi fiasco

Yesterday I watched the critically acclaimed English movie Arrival (2016) for the first time, and the first thing that stuck with me was the use of the word गविष्टि (gaviṣṭi).

***spoilers ahead***

In the film, the protagonist, a professor of linguistics, is approached by the US government to attempt to translate alien communication. She tells the Col. who approaches her that she needs to see said aliens and talk to them face to face in order to translate. The Col. refuses, with the implication that he would seek another expert. Our protagonist asks him to judge the proficiency of their other candidate by asking them

the Sanskrit word for 'war' and its translation

The word the candidate came up with was गविष्टि. This is in itself strange because Sanskrit has many common words for war, all of which have also been inherited by multiple Indian languages and are in currency in the 21st century.

What is stranger is the literal translation offered for this word. The other candidate translated it as 'argument', and our protagonist translated it as 'desire for more cows', and the movie implies that the latter is more accurate.

They're both wrong. It is an easy error to make, because it is a compound word made out of the word गव, which indeed means cow, and ईष्टि which does mean desire. But this error is all the more egregious because linguistics is one of the foundations of the movie and the story it was based on.

In reality, the word गव, meaning cow, is often put in compound words for emphasis, both in Sanskrit and its nibling languages such as Bengali. I have here four examples to demonstrate my point.

1. गविष्टि (gaviṣṭi): A desire as ardent as the desire for cows. Ultimate desire, basically. Extended meaning: the conflict fuelled by said desire, or the desire for such conflict. In practice, the kind of conflict referred to by this word is restricted to individual battles, not a whole war

2. गवेषणा (gaveṣaṇā): Synonymous with above, including the extended meaning about conflict. However when used in neuter/feminine gender it has the additional meaning of: the quest/research undertaken to acquire the object of said desire. This last meaning is now the dominant meaning of the word, especially in the extant Indian languages where it is used to describe scientific and philosophical research.

3. গোহারা (gohārā): A loss as bad as the loss of cows, i.e. an utter and humiliating defeat. I grew up hearing this applied to the Indian Men’s cricket team’s losses, especially against their Pakistani counterparts

4. গোরুখোঁজা (gorukhonja): A search as desperate as the search for a missing cow.

Evidently, cows were and continue to be important!

I don’t know how they got Gaviṣṭi to mean ‘argument’. Yes, the word ‘गो’ also means ‘word’ in addition to 'cow', but that has no relation to how it got to acquire the meaning of a ‘conflict’.

Anyways, as a fun exercise, here are the actual words for war in Sanskrit and their meanings, in order of popularity of usage:

1. युद्ध (yuddha) - in the masculine gender: the conquered party; in the feminine gender: the action of gaining victory over, or launching attack on; in the neutral gender: the battle or war that is fought

2. संग्राम (sangrama) - the coming together or assembly of a tribe/village/troops thereof, to beat the shit out of other tribes/villages. The resulting battle/war.

3. रण (raṇa) - in the masculine gender: joy, pleasure (related to रम्), making noise (onomatopoeia); in the neuter gender: fight, struggle, war - presumably in the sense of 'an encounter that makes a lot of noise'

4. समर (samara) - the act of joining together to hurt others, war.

It is significant, I think, that two out of these words focus on the fundamentally cooperative nature of war - about how war is a collective effort - it is not one person’s struggle against anything.

Coming back to the film, another egregious error it commits is in its handling of Linguistic relativity. But that's a subject for another post.

Chapter 2: Pillars of the Indras of the West

Cultures around the world have traditionally worshipped tall things, whether they be trees, mountains or monoliths. Of particular note is the worship of un-carved wooden pillars or poles, which seems to have had a peculiar connection to specific deities.

Indra's Flagpole, aka Mahendradhwaja described in the previous chapter, and the chaityas described in the epics share the following characteristics with these international sacred pillars/poles.

1. They are meant to represent sacred trees (In Indra's case it is a bamboo plant)
2. They are originally made of wood
3. They are not modified with carvings of humans, animals etc
4. They are worshipped as a standalone representation of a deity
5. They are used as symbols of royal authority

Most of these are found in the Levant and surrounding regions, stretching to Egypt in the south, Italy in the west, Turkey in the north, and Iraq in the east.

Assyrian sacred pillar on wall panel, dubbed "Tree of Life" by modern scholars, Nimrud, Iraq, 883-859 BCE	Djed pillar, ancient Egyptian religious symbol on wall panel, possibly connected to the Assyrian symbol on the left, Abydos, Egypt, 1290 to 1279 BCE	Detail of Lion Gate, showing Pillar-Baetyl (sacred pillar) flanked by two lionesses, Mycenae, Greece, 1350 BCE
Stele with group of Pillar-Baetyls (sacred pillars), Punic religion, Nora, Italy, 9th-8th Century BCE	Stele showing an Asherah Pole, sacred to semitic Goddess. Antakya, Turkey, 810-783 BCE	Reverse of Coin struck by Roman Emperor Macrinus, showing conical pillar dedicated to Aphrodite in a temple courtyard, Byblos, Lebanon, 217-218 CE

As you can see, these examples cover many different civilizations, including the Egyptian, Phoenician/Punic, Assyrian, Canaanite (Semitic), Mycenaean, and Roman. However, these particular examples are of unique importance because they are unrelated to the Proto-Indo-European religion, as currently hypothesised.
-

Oddly enough, the only other descendants of the PIE religion known to have similar pillars/poles are both of Germanic origin, and the pillar/pole motifs are from the Middle Ages (441 CE onwards).

Saxon religion was extant primarily in the regions currently governed by Germany, France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark and Britain. Although related to the religion of their northern cousins, the Scandinavians, they had some distinct practices and motifs, which include the one known as Irminsul.

The name Irminsul means "great/mighty/rising pillar" in the Old Saxon language, and its oldest extant description calls it a defoliated tree trunk. It fits all the characteristics listed above, but the deity associated with it is not known. Unfortunately, all of the descriptions of this pillar/pole are second-hand, and written by people who destroyed or sought to destroy such pillars.

In fact, the only pictorial representation of the Irminsul comes from a Christian sculpture in Externsteine, Germany, in which the Irminsul is being bent/broken by the Christian Cross.

The bent/broken T-shaped structure on the right is alleged to be a representation of the Irminsul. The column above it is the foot of the Christian Cross. The relief was carved into the natural rock formations in Externsteine, Germany around the ninth-twelfth century CE.

The Viking religion equivalent was the practice of venerating both actual trees and wooden pillars.

Different deities had different trees dedicated to them, and typically all prayers, sacrifices and important social ceremonies would be undertaken under these trees. Of particular note is the oak tree, dedicated to Thor.

Trees dedicated to Thor were to be found all over the Germanic territory, from Iceland in the north to continental Germany itself. Two such trees were made famous in literature:

1. In the Völsunga saga, an oak tree called Barnstokkr grows inside King Völsung's hall, into which Odin thrusts a sword, thereby kicking off the plot of the saga.
2. Life of Saint Boniface, a biography written in 8th century CE speaks of a tree known simply as Donar's Oak (Donar is German for Thor), which was dramatically cut down by the eponymous Saint, in order to convert all the locals to Christianity.

Further, in Iceland, a pair of wooden pillars known as Öndvegissúlur were to be found, which were dedicated to some deity and were used as symbols of royal authority. These were also immortalised in saga literature.

Some tenuous connection may also be made to an artefact called Sampo from Finnish Mythology (which is a non-Germanic descendant of PIE religion). Sampo has been identified by some scholars as a representation of the pillar/world tree which holds up the sky-dome (a similar pillar is spoken of in the Rig Veda).

Three things are immediately noticeable about this ancient trend of worshipping royal wooden poles/pillars.

First, the timeline. The non-PIE poles/pillars are more or less contemporaneous with the accounts of Mahendradhwaja and chaityas in the Indic epics. Saxon religion may have existed as far back as 2nd century BCE, and Norse religion may also have been Pre-Roman in origin. Finnish religion, insomuch as it is relevant, may also have been Pre-Roman.

Second, the obvious connections of these pillars/poles with both lightning and royal authority. It is common knowledge that tall trees/poles attract lightning. Therefore it would have been obvious for ancient people to imagine that the denizens of heaven would send lightning down to the poles and thereby exercise their authority on the mortal world. Thus, the most powerful deity(ies) of each of these cultures was associated with a pillar/pole.

Because the concept of royal authority was closely related to divine authority in all of these cultures, it is not surprising that these pillars also became symbols of royal authority.

Third, the unique case of the pillar in the temple of Aphrodite/Adonis in Byblos. 

Byblos is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, and it was founded by the Phoenicians. The temple was also of Phoenician origin, and originally dedicated to the Goddess Astarte. By the time the city came under Roman control, it became associated with Aphrodite, who was of mixed ancestry - i.e. with Phoenician, Semitic and Indo-European attributes.

Consequently, this pillar had more in common with the Mahendradhwaja than the others, viz. it was

1. associated with fertility
2. placed in a temple courtyard
3. part of an annual festival

Not only that, but this pillar was still being worshipped when the Mahendradhwaja and others had declined, and the northern counterparts were just being established. i.e. pillars such as the one in Byblos may represent the turning point in the migration of the concept towards northern Europe.

Thus ends the chapter describing the origin and instances of the pillars of the Western counterparts of Shatakrata Aditya, aka Indra, using pillars, poles and posts as a device.

What's in a flag? - Part II: International Attitudes

Since the data used in my poll or in Quora did not account for international opinion, I ventured to make my own inquiry about the attitudes towards flags and national symbols worldwide.

Among other things that I found there was this survey by the Reputation Institute. Funnily enough, India outranks both China and the USA in terms of national self-image, and the list itself is topped by Australia. Most importantly,  note that none of the counties in that study put themselves below 50, suggesting that even with a perceived negative self-image, on average most people everywhere have a respect for their country.

I further analysed flag culture in two particular countries - the USA and Germany.

The USA

The USA is probably the only place in the world where you can find this:

Source: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-innocent-gestures-that-make-you-look-like-dick-overseas_p2/

Astounding, isn't it? So I looked in their official flag code, and here are some major differences I found vs. India

1. Their brand of patriotism is a mixture of fanatic yet extremely informal affection
   The kind of devotion shown to the US flag rivals the respect shown to many religious symbols worldwide. Yet the depiction of the flag is not exactly reverent - you can easily find the flag on a bikini  as over a formal establishment.
   By contrast, Indians treat the Tricolour with far more formality.
2. The US Flag code does not contain any penalties or enforcement provisions for noncompliance
   You can actually use flags as doormats or even burn them in protests without legal consequence. The concept of social conditioning or legal force does not seem to arise here. 

Germany

In Germany, we see a different picture. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the present flag was adopted on 3rd October 1990. The colours and associated symbolism however, go back to the Frankfurt Revolution of 1848,  technically making it older than our Tricolour.

And yet, as Wikipedia says, 

In Germany the use of the flag and other national symbols has been relatively low for most of the time since the Second World War—a reaction against the widespread use of flags by the Nazi Party and against the nationalistic furore of the Nazis in general. The flag is used primarily by official authorities on special occasions or by citizens during international sporting events.

Indeed, Germans make a clear distinction between being "happy to be German" and being "proud to be German. As this video (start at 3:52) shows, most Germans take the former stance.

What's in a Flag? - Part I: India

In my continuous bid to understand the world through the study of stories and storytelling, I happened to hit a particular roadblock. Said roadblock was a concept that I found seriously difficult to understand, but without which I could not proceed in my studies.

Therefore, taking a cue from MCU villain catchphrase "Discovery requires experimentation" I decided to perform a social experiment… more like an opinion poll. The objective of the poll was to understand if public opinion associated a national symbol with the particular concept that I'm interested in. For my poll I chose the national flag.

Flags and banners have a primarily military origin, serving to distinguish between sides in a battle and various other military purposes. Nevertheless, national flags are the most conspicuous national symbols used worldwide. National anthems stand at second place and national emblems are used far more sparingly, especially in public.

Sources

Post by Ishita Roy.

The Concept of Reputation

This article is a companion to my answer to Ramayana: Was Lord Rama right in sending Mata Sita to the forest?

Reputation is a resource. There is no denying it. Individuals and organizations can and do learn how to weaponize/market this resource, and it is the only resource available to the utterly destitute. Like any resource, reputation by itself is a source of power.

e.g. Brand Equity is defined as the amount of money that can be raised by an organization solely based on its reputation. Coca Cola is said to have the highest BE in the world - exceeding several national economies. Building BE is a legitimate and vast area of study in management.

Reputation is also not real. To stretch this metaphor from a quote by Abraham Lincoln, reputation is a product of the character of the individual, the circumstances surrounding her, and the decisions taken by her. It is a shadow of the tree, where the individual is the tree.

The concept of reputation goes hand in hand with Plato's allegory of the cave. That is to say, at any given point of time, we do not see people as they are, but as a combination of

1. What we want to think about them,
2. What they want us to think about them,
3. What we have heard about them, and
4. What we actually see them saying and doing

Simply put, we cannot see the tree, we can only see the shadow. And in order to get a correct idea of the tree, we have to see multiple shadows cast under multiple lighting conditions. And then there's the added complication of the tree being a living being (i.e. growing, aging, changing with the seasons, falling ill, dying).

Thus the quest for keeping up and seeing through a reputation is never-ending, extremely important, and ultimately futile.

But when the need to maintain and increase one's reputation becomes a greater drive than using that reputation for some purpose, we call that condition vanity, pride and ego.

Science:Linux::Religion:Windows

Yet another Facebook debate (Albeit sparked by me).

Science is a religion because it is a world view of considerable complexity with a number of major tenets. Most of these major tenets are as follows: the universe is real, and therefore a valid object for examination; it is of value for human beings to examine the universe; the universe makes sense - that is, it follows certain laws and is predictable;

The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah...we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is the awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion

The notions of science themselves become cultural idols,... In its laudable insistence upon experience, accurate observation and verifiability, science has placed great emphasis upon measurement... But by virtue of its success, measurement has become a kind of scientific idol... It is as if they were to say, "What we cannot measure, we cannot know; there is no point in worrying about what we cannot know; therefore, what cannot be measured is unimportant and unworthy of our observation."

perhaps we shall soon be able to say: "There is nothing beyond the limits of our vision. If we decide to study something, we can always find the methodology with which to do it."

When we are able to say that "a human is both mortal and eternal at the same time" and "light is both a wave and a particle at the same time," we are speaking the same language.

These quotes are taken verbatim from a book called "The Road Less Traveled" written by M. Scott Peck, an M.D. in Psychiatry. A similar opinion has been expressed by sociologists, anthropologists and scientists like Carl Sagan. Sociologists BTW are the blokes who define what religion and science are.

My point is this, to most of us, the Universe, just like a computer, is a 'black box'. We don't really know anything about the hardware or the software, but we know if we put in certain inputs in a certain way, we can expect certain outputs. To that end, we have to use an operating system.

Science and Religion are both operating Systems through which we experience and understand the known (and unknown) universe, and most importantly, make it do something useful. Some OS like Linux, focus on understanding the machine/universe at a relatively deeper level so that we may better control it. Other OS like Windows, focus on getting the job done, without having the user spend valuable time and energy in training themselves in esoteric fields such as programming.

Science is like Linux. Supercomputers are run on it. All CGI companies use it. Android OS is based off it. But its popularity will always be limited because most people don't need to use supercomputers or make CGI.

Android is to Linux what Technology is to Science. Again in the case of Technology, just like with Android, most people neither  root their android devices or realistically use a fraction of the awesome features that android actually has (features, not apps).

Religion is like Windows. It is popular because it takes care of the mundane. It is uncomplicated and intuitive. The hole in the wall project would not have succeeded with Linux. Like Windows, Religion gets the job done. And it can be just as fascinating to the nerds as Linux.

So to speak of your specific objections:

a) scientists are human and therefore science is not free of subjectivity, emotion and personal biases. Science is not universal - it is a platform where consensus can be built or broken about the way we understand the world.

b) religions are also based on research and deal with the basic political, economic, social and legal realities - in case it isn't clear to you, these things have logic and rationality at their foundations

c) The problem is not with religion - it is with human nature and our tendency to be dogmatic.

The age of an ocean is a question that makes sense to a geologist. To the religious, that age is an irrelevant number - because it doesn't affect the way we treat that ocean and its resources and the organisms in it.

And all religious people are not Literalists. Remember, Buddhism is also a religion.

Debate 2: Round - X - Ishita

Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.

Kumar Alok,

If I may, here's what I understand your entire critique to be:

1. Feminism is a purely western ideology, and not an all-encompassing philosophy that believes in or works towards achieving gender equality because it is a rights based approach and a pro-woman stance, which is grounded in the assumption of an 'independent individual'.
2. Because of the above reasons (and more), Indian visionaries who worked for the welfare of women in India cannot be classified as feminists.
3. Dehumanization doesn't exist (and cannot exist) - it is a fiction that is propagated (if not created) by human rights activists, and feminists, in order to further their agenda (whatever that may be).

With that out of the way, let me address the critique.
1.  Logic is a branch of mathematics, i.e. it's a tool. Transposition (or any other logical operation) can neither create nor destroy information - it merely presents the various equivalent forms of the given information. If the transposed statement seems to be lacking information - it is only because the original statement didn't have much info to begin with. 'All Men are mortals' is a useless and redundant statement in a universe where all organisms and phenomena are mortal.

2. Before we proceed, a word on what rights and duties mean.

I refer you to W. N. Hohfeld's seminal analysis of these fundamental jural concepts, which is the basis of modern jurisprudence. Relevant conclusions:

a. The first thing to know about rights and duties is that they are FUNCTIONALLY INSEPARABLE. They are like Action and Reaction in Newton's 3rd law of motion - they are equal, opposite, and are exerted by and on different bodies. 

If you fail in your duties, the FIRST negatively affected party will always be somebody else. Any repercussions on you due to your failure to perform your duties is always secondary and enforced by somebody else (a court of law, or a vengeful aggrieved party, etc.)

e.g.  If you fail in your duties to take care of and respect your elderly parents, they are the ones who'll pay for it. They're the ones deprived of care and honour. You clearly never had any use for their blessings and emotional support in the first place, so you lose nothing.

It is also futile to talk about 'rights based' or 'duty based' approaches to anything - they are one and the same. It does not matter if you define crime as transgression of duty or violation of rights, the plaintiff will be the same person - but never the same as the defendant.

b. The only exception to this would the concept of a purely moral duty. A purely moral duty is based on the concept that no one has any rights (or the ability to defend them) - only the capability to perform duties, and that transgression of said duties affects the transgressor ALONE, by injuring his/her conscience. Moral systems linked to organized religion such as 'Karma' or 'Judgement Day' tend to escalate the injury to conscience into allegedly higher personal punishments. The problems with a purely moral duty based approach are that

1. It is based on a lie. As proved above, regardless of injury to conscience (or higher personal punishment), it is always a second party who is first and foremost negatively affected.
2. It removes from society the power to hold the transgressors accountable, and deprives the aggrieved of justice.
3. This is a textbook definition of an individualistic approach.

It will be interesting to note that there is no concept of rights that is analogous to a purely moral duty. A right is always a legal concept, and always correlated with a duty. A social contract emphasizing on rights can only be sustained in a scenario where everybody performs their duties.

c. The jural concept of Privilege is defined as a lack of duties on one's part. Some privileges are legal e.g. I'm not required to respect an (armed and dangerous) enemy soldier's right to life. I have the privilege (license) to kill. Like rights, legal privileges also come at a price. The license to kill has to be earned through training and loyalty, and may be used only when authorized or in extreme circumstances.

The question here is of unearned and illegal privileges. These are privileges obtained due to non-performance of duty. Ancient Vedic culture is built around Brahmin and Male (unearned) privilege. Go ahead and read the Manusmriti. You are certainly capable of evaluating evidences for yourself. You may also read this text The Philosophy of Hinduism. It was written by the Father of the Indian Constitution.

d. The Hohfeldian definition and analysis of the eight jural concepts is based on the assumption that all humans are fundamentally and undeniably interdependent. It acknowledges the fact that humans have the capability, both individually and in a group, to deny or violate the rights of other individuals and groups. It also acknowledges that the dehumanized and oppressed individuals and groups have the power to fight back for their rights.

e. Essentially, if we call any right inalienable, we are not saying that they CAN'T be violated. We're declaring that denial  or violation of that right is 'unnatural' i.e. violates natural justice, and is 'inhuman' i.e. denies the humanity of the person whose inalienable right was violated.

When we declare something a human right (as opposed to say an animal right), we're not saying that possession of that right MAKES a person human. We're saying that a person has that right BECAUSE they're human. We're saying that Denial of human rights to some person is the same as Denial of that person's humanity, i.e. dehumanization.

The right to be recognized as a legal person is one such inalienable human right.  (see again Art. 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Even incompetents, i.e. children, the comatose, the mentally incapacitated, the unborn, etc. are not denied legal personality - their legal personality is exercised indirectly through their legal guardians.

3. Pointwise answer to your conclusions about the transposition of legal and natural personality

a. Explained above, humans have the ability to deny personhood

b. Communist or despot-ruled states need not be lawless. The difference between democracy and other political systems lies in the investiture of power and the ease of change of leadership, not in their ability to govern well and enact and enforce good legislation. Case in point: Rwanda - dictatorship and a successful model of gender equality

c. Of course it can. It is ultimately a question of 'Who will guard the guards?'.
As explained above, dehumanized people can and did fight for their rights. The citizens of India rose against the British Indian Government, as did other colonies. We didn't exactly fight a legal battle… See Civil Disobedience Movement.

d. Not a possible conclusion. See the above answers.

e.  and f.  Explained above, incompetents are not denied legal personality.

Your alleged implications do not exist.  Q.E.D.

4. Dehumanization is not just about treating people as property. As you have pointed out, property may have monetary value, and be indispensable for survival. Dehumanization is treating people worse than property. 

Apart from the legal definition of dehumanization as violation and denial of inalienable human rights, it is associated with objectification. This article by Martha Nussbaum, current Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, defines objectification of persons as an action which entails one or more of the following:

• Instrumentality (using someone as a tool for another's purposes);
• Commodification (by denial of autonomy and agency);
• Fungibility (treating someone as if interchangeable with another of his/her category);
• Violability (not respecting their boundaries, treating damage to their person as permissible);
• Disposability

5. Criticisms against feminism

a. An indoctrinating ideology
As previously explained, Feminism doesn't pretend to see (or show) anything false. It is based on the stone cold reality of the worldwide inferior and despicable status of women. It traces this phenomenon to its underlying causes and tries to reverse it.

b. Originated in the West - not true, and not a valid criticism.

Feminism is about gender equality. Gender inequality is a worldwide phenomenon and must not be reduced to an East v. West debate.
Besides, as I've explained repeatedly, the philosophy that women should be socially, politically and economically equal to men isn't of western origin. As for the activism, a Western origin doesn't preclude a movement from adapting itself to Eastern outlooks.

c. Rights based approach - debunked above, all approaches are equally rights and duty based.

d. Pro-woman stance

It appears that some good people are confused about how a gender-biased approach can lead to gender equality. I have three answers:

1.  We live in a world which is in a state of gender imbalance and inequality. Here the ONLY approach to restore balance and equality is to boost the oppressed gender, until equality has been achieved. And there's no doubt about which is the oppressed gender.
2. Pro-woman is not anti-man. Restoring rights to women does not take away rights from men, it takes away the unearned and illegal privileges hitherto held by men. Again, the restoration of women's rights and removal of these unearned and illegal male privileges is the ONLY approach to gender equality.
3. Even if you include the LGBTQIA rights into the equation, you'll find that Feminism has (at least in the West) quickly evolved to include the LGBTQIA community in its fight for gender equality.

e. Not validated by Hindu scripture - Are. You. Serious?

Can any 'scripture' truly be the source and repository of all knowledge?  It is a bigoted and frankly ridiculous excuse for dismissing any philosophy.

f. "such texts place a heavy emphasis on character and a sense of right and wrong to qualify one as a human being" - and feminism does not?

The whole concept of inalienable rights revolves around humans having the basic decency to accept other human beings as fellow humans. All legal rights are ultimately tied to ethics and morality, and that's why they are called 'rights'. Feminism is after all a part of the larger human rights movement.

g. Western feminist activism is 'distinctly grounded in the assumption of an "independent individual"' - Er… No.

Western society places a high premium on 'individual achievement'. This is not to say that it does not recognize or devalues 'interdependency'. If anything, they have a better sense of collectivism than anyone in the planet. You can read about it Swami Vivekananda's epistles where he praises the social systems in the USA. Or look at how all the Scandinavian and other highly developed European countries are also highly unionised. Or see how modern jurisprudence is organized.

There are societies who actually do not put a premium on 'individual achievement'. Ancient Vedic culture wasn't one of them. Modern Hinduism certainly isn't. The Varnashrama dharma is all about the (Brahmin and Male) individual's achievement of Moksha. As explained above, the law of Karma is also essentially individualistic. So this criticism is both false and moot.

Simply put, Misogyny and Misandry are the extreme opposites, feminism stands squarely in the middle. So yes, every talk of gender equality IS feminist.

6. Regarding Swami Dayanand Saraswati. A few basic facts.

a. Swamiji was a reformer. A radical reformer, in fact. The crux and origin of his reforms was the notion that all non-Vedic scripture is a deceitful construct promoted by people with vested interests - namely the higher castes and men.
Basically, he figured out that the non-Vedic scriptures were wrong (and the Vedas were ineffable) because they denied people their basic humanity (and the Vedas didn't). He wasn't following scripture, he was following basic humanity and ethics.
b. He did not even spare the very Vedas which he considered ineffable - he rejected the Upanishads and Jyotisha (Astrology), one of the six Vedangas, and considered the 'eyes' of the Vedas. His most revolutionary reform was to make the Vedas accessible to Women and people of the lower castes. This is in direct contravention of the Manusmriti and the Varnashrama Dharma. The latter is undeniably Vedic in origin.

Essentially, he was a kite that rose against the wind, not with it.

b. Swamiji rejected the notion of hereditary caste based and male privileges. He worked actively to provide women the rights denied to them by 'corrupted Hinduism'. Clearly, a pro-woman stance and a 'rights based' approach.

All these evidences prove that Swami Dayanand Saraswati was very clearly a feminist. And he wasn't the only one.

Winter has Ended

It's been a long time since I've written anything. 2012 may not have brought the apocalypse to this earth, but it was a pretty apocalyptic year for me. And it's not like I haven't written anything in this time - I even published a short note on the occasion of Shivaratri 2013.

2013 was a great year for me. What with the Kumbh Mela, and my entry into ONGC (henceforth to be referred as the COMPANY) and the beginning of my 4 month training (mostly) in Dehradun, I've learnt so much, done so much, met so many new and awesome people.

I wrote a lot of poetry in Dehradun and Rishikesh. I spent my free time in Cambay reading up on subjects such as Origami, the Philosophy of Hinduism, Hindutva v. Hinduism (Thank you, NaMo), The Varnashrama Dharma, and Feminism and Skepticism.

But what ultimately compelled me to break my silence (apart from a steady job and proper internet access) was a Facebook debate between an academic and myself, sparked by the tweets of one Madhu Kishwar.

Safest and most convenient dress for women is the Punjabi salwar/ churidaar kameez. Efficient, yet feminine! Suitable even for air hostesses
— Madhu Kishwar (@madhukishwar) June 2, 2014

While the author of the tweet has subsequently gone on record saying she wasn't talking about rape at all (and I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt), it did spark the debate that it did.

More on the debate in the next post.

Wangst

“Decadence hath many names,
And many of them I now answer to,
For when hoisted by my own petard,
Why blame should I the trickster world?”

This wasn't my idea of standing on my feet.
To be a lackey, who lacked servility.
To be the angry and reckless girl I am,
Rather than the sensible woman I thought I really was.

I am a cog in the wheel, a necessary one,
As I knew I would be one day,
But realized I perhaps too late
That necessity does not imply importance.

Another in my place would had more patience,
To either tolerate or quietly jump ship,
But alas! not I, I'm afraid to say,
Going quietly isn't really my forte.

So I take to Drama, and with much fanfare,
I proceed to undo all that I've done,
Forsooth I say, 'What is reputation!
If not the unfaithful shadow of true character?'

“It's not really all that much of a deal,
It was just a job that was well done,
By them, who made me hate myself
So much that just to spite the face,
I would very gladly cut off the nose.”

Rituals and Observances

I seem to have 'bettered the instruction', as Shylock would have put it, in the observance of fasts and sundry rituals. Or so say many of my friends. So it occurred to me to ask myself, why do I do it?

I'm not sure I can quote health reasons any more. Admittedly, fasts at least aren't much fun either.

I am not religious enough to be motivated simply by the spiritual and other benefits promised by associated legends. Legends are merely entertaining. And I don't value entertainment above sleep and nutrition.

I am not a masochist. I am a devotee. I believe that fasting will strengthen my will and my body. And by improving through my own actions what I've received from Him, I am sure I will please the object of my devotion.

I write this with the prayer that my well-wishers are comforted, and that I may succeed in my objectives.

Criminal Proceedings

For the love of God, stop this madness, this tarring and feathering of a brother at fault. Stop this violence that springs from retaliation.

He who has shown courage in confession must warrant repayment by compassion.

Stir not the hornet's nest, in search for justice. For rest assured that thou shalt receive justice in full. For he who points a finger at another will find three pointed back at himself.

Jatayu & Sampati

Jatayu & Sampati

The Legend of Ram... The Big Brother

Most tales that talk of the victory of good over evil talk also of the merits of unity and universal brotherhood. But the epic of Ramayana outdoes them all, by being exclusively a tale of many sets of brothers, full and half. Each set of siblings seems to serve as the vessel for a different message, but the fact that the story revolves around fraternity is the biggest message of them all.

The Children of Kekasi

The Ramayana is very accurately the tale of the rise & fall of Ravana, Kekasi’s first born. It is interesting to note that every event in his downfall was the doing of one of his siblings.

It is Surpanakha who introduced Rama to her brother, and instigated him to avenge her humiliation and the massacre of her clan at Janasthana by targeting Sita as Lakshmana had targeted her. Blinded by rage to the fact that the attacks were not unprovoked (a fact that Ravana didn’t know or care about), she goaded her brother to wage a war that he would never return from.

Both Kumbhakarna & Vibhishana gave him good counsel, and tried desperately to save their family. And while both made widely different choices after their counsel was rejected, both are equally responsible for Ravana’s downfall.

Vibhishana’s desertion only brought things to a conclusion, in the sense that he revealed Ravana’s mortal weaknesses and aided the progress and health of the monkey army. But Kumbhakarna’s support, however unwillingly given, actually served to encourage Ravana towards his end. Had he followed his younger & wiser brother, Ravana might have changed his mind.

It is to Kumbhakarna’s credit, however, that when on the battlefield, he recognised Rama & the other leaders to be the prime enemy, not his brother.

The Kings of Kiskindha

Bali and Sugreeva had different fathers, but monkeys being matriarchal creatures, it never bothered them. Here too, the elder brother falls when he fails to listen to his brother’s explanations. If ego was Ravana’s folly, rage and spite were Bali’s. Unlike Vibhishana, however, Sugreeva’s motives in allying with Rama were not so much about siding with righteousness, as it was about delivering his vengeance.

In his vindictiveness, in his sheer impatience and even in physical appearance (as a frustrated Rama found out), Sugreeva matched Bali. But even as he repented on his deathbed, Bali could not match Sugreeva‘s grief over losing him.

The Grandsons of the Sun

Oddly enough, the paragon of brotherhood in this tale seems to be a pair of vultures, Jatayu and Sampati. In their childhood, the brothers had started a race to the very top of the skies. But as they got nearer to the sun, it very nearly scorched Jatayu. Sampati, the elder, rescued his brother at the cost of his own wings. Later, even as he learnt of his brother’s death at Ravana’s hands, Sampati finished what Jatayu had started, by pointing out Lanka to Hanuman and his team of searchers.

The Half-Brothers of Kosala

In sharp contrast to the full siblings who caused the downfall of their eldest, and consequently their clan, are set the heroes of this story, who stand together in spite of the heavy politics of the women’s quarters. Such unity among step brothers is unheard of even in the Treta yuga, and Valmiki’s emphasis on the bond between Rama and Lakshmana, and Rama and Bharata, and Bharata and Shatrughna, portrays his own tone of surprise at such an occurrence.

The relation between the identical twins, on the other hand, is taken for granted, and while each twin favours a different half-brother, neither is shown to be indifferent or hostile to the other’s favourite.  Even Lakshmana’s suspicions about Bharata are only short-lived, and severely chided by Rama.

Of course, it may be argued that the half-brothers’ closeness is attributable to their being parts of Vishnu’s essence – or the Charu, and the order in which it was administered to the 3 queens. But even this argument is just demonstrative of the scepticism against such a thing occurring naturally. Besides, birth order is just as easily a determinant of the twins’ favourites. Eldest and youngest stick together, as do the ones in the middle.

But the fact is that they all stick together, hear each other out (unlike the monkeys), take each others’ counsel (unlike Ravana), and watch out for each other (very like the vultures). And it is such fraternity that is the foundation of strength and prosperity – this is Valmiki’s message.

प्रगटे है चारों भैया, अवध में बाजे बजैया 

Mors Mortis

Death is a poorly understood phenomenon, in spite of the sheer volume of philosophy and research dedicated to understanding it. One potent indicator of this is the prevalence of myths and legends about the undead.

These lores and legends talk about the consequences of an interrupted transition to the afterlife. The creatures that are born out of such consequences have been described differently across the ages, and much can be surmised about the original purpose behind describing them and the inspiration behind those descriptions.

Classification

I.            Incorporeals – Ghosts, Spirits, Poltergeists, Banshees, etc.

These are apparitions which arise spontaneously as a consequence of the deceased having unfulfilled desires. More often than not, the cause of death is foul play, but COD and post-mortem treatment are not a major criterion for their origin.

These beings are not attached to corpses, but are very location specific.

II.            Reanimated Corpses – Zombies, Mummies, Inferi, etc.

These creatures are generated by special post-mortem treatment and usually have limited sentience. In the rare occasions that they have a will of their own, such as in the case of Frankenstein, it is usually derived from the past experiences of the inhabitant of the corpse in question. Cause of death is deciding factor.

III.            Modified Corpses – Vampires, Lycanthropes, Dementors, etc.

The living body is sustained by food, breath and water, and has corresponding powers and limitations. When the body loses the capability to sustain itself and hence its life-force, death occurs. Theoretically, death can be ‘cheated’ by modifying the mode of sustenance. Naturally this gives rise to a whole new creature, with different powers and limitations. The term Undead is most usually applied to such creatures.

Lycanthropes, such as werewolves, and Mr. Hyde, are creatures that are capable of dual existence i.e. both in human and supernatural forms, the latter being parasitic on the former. Vampires, on the other hand, are immortals, requiring blood or some other form of life force – ichor, or chi, for example – for sustenance.

Vampires

Vampire lore is one of the most enduring legends in the world. Its timeless appeal is attributable to both its foundations and its adaptability. I present here some of the key components of the lore.

Blood

Blood is one of the two liquid connective tissues, and along with breath, the very symbol of vitality. It is unsurprising, therefore, that it is held in reverence. But unlike breath, blood is also intimately linked to procreation, which makes it especially venerable; fit for a sacrifice to the gods, even.

World over, various rites and practices have been reported that are founded upon the sanctity of blood. These practices range from the Mayan human sacrifices, to the smearing of jurors’ lips with blood before they passed judgment, in Ancient China. Most notable among these is the Catholic tradition of Corpus Christi – the symbolic partaking of the blood and the body of Christ.

Thus, one of the original reasons for condemning vampires was that they partake of the essence of godliness, the divine offering – in effect denying and denouncing the divinity of the Deity.

Evil

What makes a vampire fundamentally different from a mosquito? A mosquito wreaks much more havoc, is zealously hunted, yet never condemned – merely accepted as a part of creation. Why then, are vampires not treated as a separate species and left at that?

More often than not, it seems, vampires are punished as humans are, because they have lost their humanity. But is the resemblance to a human adequate reason for judging a vampire on the human scales of good and evil?

Is it that like the humans, vampires are damned by an Original Sin of their own, because their progenitor was created out of an act of heresy or a curse?

These are only some of the questions that arise out of the possibility of such creatures. The fact remains that evil has been as misunderstood by humans as death has been. Perhaps the vampire legends are an indicator – a litmus test of sorts – for the concepts of good and evil popular during the creation of those legends. Dracula, for example, is described as being wholly evil. Modern tales like the Vampire Diaries and the Twilight Saga, however, ascribe to them a choice, an attempt at redemption.

Eternity

The fact that senescence and death are essential to the renewal of life on this planet, give them a place of honour among the theistic laws of the universe – all those are born, must die. The vampire legends give them the powers of immortality, but not invincibility – they can still be destroyed.

Nevertheless, the vampires’ existence, if only in theory, tells of a way to flout this divine law. And it is for the transcendence of this law that vampires are also often condemned. But all legends concur on one thing – that eternal life itself is punishment for seeking it.

Life can be harsh, even for those who are seemingly well provided for. It requires courage to face the here and now, and live every moment. Much has been written about life being wasted on the living. Imagine how much harder it would be to try to live on for eternity, with nothing but a conscience (if any) for company.

This is most prominent in Anne Rice’s works, whose vampire protagonists fight the eternal battle between the loneliness of the damned and their lust for preternatural power.

Whatever they may be, sentient, or evilly so, or maybe just a glorified human, the concept of vampires is definitely unfamiliar to those who do not see death as an end or to those who’ve never believed in any evil force like The Adversary, and generally find both death and evil easier to accept.

The western mentality makes it hard to accept both Death and Evil. And hence the origin of the lore surrounding the Undead in the Occident. Creatures who have cheated death. Creatures who resemble humans yet prey upon them. Creatures who must do evil to sustain themselves.

These things, vampires and such, are powerful insights into occidental ideas of death and evil. The lore is ubiquitous and contemporary, because they deal with questions which are eternally on the western mind.