Mudrarakshasa by Vishakadatta

Mudrarakshasa by VisakhadattaMudrarakshasa, written by Vishakadatta (Translated by R S Pandit) in 6th century CE, is a political thriller set in an interesting period in Indian history. It is the time of Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, and the Nandas. By this time, in Kusumapura (Patna), the last of the Nanda kings has renounced the world and his kingdom taken over by Chandragupta and Chanakya. Malayaketu, a small vassal king, left Chandragupta’s court after his father was poisoned. Though he fled, Malayaketu has a trump card in Rakshasa, the honest and smart minister. The goal of Chanakya at the beginning of the play is to bring Rakshasa to his camp so that Chandragupta would have an able minister by his side.

The title Mudrarakshasa refers to the signet ring of Rakshasa. It was stolen by Chanakya’s spy. Using that mudra Chanakya forges a letter which sets the wheel of intrigue into motion.  After a few back and forth moves, Chanakya is able to brilliantly seed suspicion into the minds of Rakshasa and Malayaketu. The spies of Chanakya spin tales and at some point, Malayaketu is suspicious of Rakshasa’s loyalty. Malayaketu thinks that if Chanakya is gone, then Rakshasa might switch loyalty. Also, though it was Chanakya who killed Malayaketu’s father, the blame was put on Rakshasa. While all this is happening, Rakshasa sees his world falling apart, with his friends disappearing in Chanakya’s web for one mistake he did. He left his family at a friend’s house while he left. That step, along with the loss of his ring, would lead to his fall.

The scenes alternate between Chanakya’s house and Rakshasa’s house with one making a cunning move and the other trying to foresee and counter it. It is like a game of shatranj, but with lives at stake. It creates great drama and suspense. Through dialogue, Vishakadatta exposes the ideals of the characters and to what length they would go to defend their allegiances. Chanakya is focussed on the brilliant and brave Rakshasa — he admires him, though he is in the enemy camp — and wants to get him to the Maurya side. He would do anything to achieve that goal, like forging letters, imprisoning innocent people and threatening to kill them, exiling people, using poison girls and spies.  He knows Rakshasa’s weakness for his friends and exploits it to make him helpless and surrender.

Rakshasa is not a simpleton either. He tries his best to murder Chandragupta. On the day, Chandragupta was to enter as the victor to the palace, Rakshasa had placed a shooter and a mahout to assassinate him, but instead of Chandragupta, the assassins get killed. Then Rakshasa tried poisoning Chandragupta, instead, Chanakya made the poisoner drink it. Then a group was made to hide in Chandragupta’s room. Chanakya spotted ants coming from the floor with food and detected the hidden enemies.

The play shows how spies form an important tool in both Chanakya’s and Rakshasa’s arsenal (“They know a thousand languages, they have a thousand eyes, they travel in thousand disguises”).  There is a Brahmin, Indusharman, dressed as a Buddhist monk, who gets friendly with the ministers of Rakshasa. Then there is Nipunaka, who walks around carrying a cloth with designs of Yama. His task is to keep an eye on the general population. Jain monk, Jivasiddhi too is a spy and so is Viradhagupta dressed as a snake charmer.

Rakhasa, though defeated, ends on a high note. He becomes the minister of Chandragupta, passing a tough test. He is respected for his ethical stand and keeping his moral fiber in-tact, despite all the odds. Chanakya too ends on a high note. He used deception to trap Rakshasa, not to benefit him, but Chandragupta. He himself retires. The play brings out the contrast between these two ministers. Chanakya is ruthless, but Rakshasa is softer and relenting. Chanakya can plot a deceptive scheme, Rakshasa is more of a soldier.

An interesting aspect of this play — and I have to confess that I have not read many — is that there is no romance at all. In fact, there are no main women characters (there are minor ones like guards and wife of one character). Apparently, Sanskrit dramas have a vidushaka character, which is missing in this one. It is a cut and dry political drama with intrigue and intellectual arguments on duty and loyalty.

PS: There is a scene where the Jain monk Jivasiddhi shows up when Rakshasa is looking for an astrologer. Rakshasa reacts, “That naked monk! What an evil omen.”
PS1: Do you know how Chanakya died? Interestingly, it comes from a Jain source, which is the only source.

Was Buddhism a social reformation of Hinduism?

Hinduism and Buddhism by Ananda CoomaraswamyThere is an academic notion that Buddha was not just a religious teacher, but a social critic and a revolutionary social theorist. He is also considered a social reformer who challenged the Brahmin orthodoxy. Buddha also reacted against the social structure made up of the four castes, which denied individual autonomy and human freedom.
This narrative fits well with the notion of a linear process where a new system differentiates from an existing system. It is similar to how Martin Luther reformed the ritualistic Catholicism and how Christianity came out of Judaism. But was Buddhism a social reformation of Hinduism?
According to Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, it was not. In his book, Hinduism and Buddhism, he writes that the distinction can be found only by people who study Buddhism superficially. A student with deep knowledge will not. According to him, there is nothing he could find which could be called as social reform or a protest against the caste system. Instead, AKC says  Buddha can be called a reformer because he had discovered the ancient ways of the awakened. The Buddha also praised the Brahmins who remembered the old path of the contemplatives that led to Brahma.
Both the Upanishads and Buddhist doctrines were born in the forest where they continued with purity. As time passed, the Brahmins moved to the courts and got corrupted by power, grandeur, and rituals. They became Brahmins by birth as opposed to those who knew Brahma.
The intention of both sets of doctrines was to restore the truths that were known before. The problem is that people admire Buddhism for what it is not and what scholars think Buddha should have said.
At the same time, there is selective suppression of what Buddha said. In lectures by American Buddhists, there is rarely a mention of reincarnation or supernatural powers. The talks mostly revolve around contemplative practices. These techniques are popular in the Western world; in a recent podcast, may high achievers admitted to following the practice.  It is lucrative to remove “otherworldly mumbo-jumbo” from Buddhism and sell it as “mindfulness”. This does not mean that the Buddha did not advocate mindfulness. For him, it was not something you carried in your pocket and used occasionally. Mindfulness was part of life and he warned against doing things absent-mindedly. Buddha believed in reincarnation too. Siddhartha Gautama was seventh in a series of prophetic incarnations.
When it comes to the discussion of the Self, there is little distinction to be found between the two traditions (“for those who have attained, there is naught dearer than the self”, “the Self is the lord of the self and its goal”, says the Buddha). Both traditions are experiential and understanding the concepts logically was insufficient. The goal was to transcend the senses and experience the Self. Like in the Upanishads, the goal of an Arhat is brahma-bhutena-atmana or “with the self that is Brahma-become”. The question which leads to that answer is quite familiar: By which self (kena-atmana) does one attain the Brahma world? Take a look at the first line of Kena Upanishad and see what it says. Buddha also discovered early on that what is now known as cogito ergo sum is delusional and proposed anatmya or the non-existence of permanent ego.
The concept of Brahman is achieved by a process of elimination. No one can define what Brahman is; it is defined by saying neti neti (not this, not this). In Buddhist tradition, the physical and mental factors are analyzed, perceived and observed. Finally, the observer separates from the thoughts and feelings and says, “That is not my self”. In the Upanishad tradition, we know our senses say what the reality is. Finally, we transcend that reality and reach a state where we perceive other states of existence. The Autobiography of a Yogi and Sri M’s book details various experiences that a spiritual person passes through.
Another imagery that is common in both traditions is that of the chariot and charioteer. Through various techniques, both traditions help us understand the Self and what the Self is not. In both traditions, we are not wanderers guided by events like a ship in a storm, but beings capable of knowing the Self and experiencing it.

The brilliance of Panini

Long time back in Takshashila, there lived two students who were studying to be grammarians,  a popular topic. One of them was dull; the other very bright. Everyone used to make fun of the dull boy and drummed into his head that he would amount to nothing in this world. Despite all that negativity, he studied to be a  vayyakarana, which was a big deal. The other boy was brilliant and was favored by the teachers.
One day, fed up with all the taunting, the dull boy left went to the forest and started meditating on Shiva. It is said that after a long time, he got blessed or got some insights. A version of the events says that he heard the sounds of the damaru played it 14 times. Instead of the beats of the damaru, the boy, who was focussed on grammar heard sounds as follows.

  1. अ इ उ ण् |
  2. ऋ ऌ क् |
  3. ए ओ ङ् |
  4. ऐ औ च् |
  5. ह य व र ट् |
  6. ल ण् |
  7. ञ म ङ ण न म् |
  8. झ भ ञ् |
  9. घ ढ ध ष् |
  10. ज ब ग ड द श् |
  11. ख फ छ ठ थ च ट त व् |
  12. क प य् |
  13. श ष स र् |
  14. ह ल् |

These 14 sutras — Maheshwara Sutras — became the basis for the text Ashtadhyayi (the text with 8 chapters) which codified the rules of  Sanskrit, both spoken language (laukika) and the compositional language (vaidika). Due to the perfection achieved by the boy, Panini, Indian linguistic thought can be divided into pre-Panini and post-Panini eras.
Panini was not the first one to attempt this feat. Ashtadhyayi mentions others before him. But, Panini’s codification was so perfect that it superseded other prevalent grammars. Well, almost perfect. Katyana or Vararuchi who was the brilliant kid wrote a commentary on Ashtadyayi called vartika sutras, in which he criticized the Ashtadyayi. Later, Patanjali came along and combined the vartikas with the Ashtadyayi and wrote the mahabhashya.

We constantly hear that what Panini achieved was a great feat of human intellect. To appreciate Panini even further,  we have to understand some of the concepts he introduced and how those help in codifying grammar concisely. At a high level, he came up with a number of primitive elements and derived the infinite number of actual forms of words in use. It uses concepts like the definition, compressing large amounts of data,  defining the steps of an algorithm with a terminating condition, and condensing text without losing information. The grammars that are common are paradigmatic. In this, you learn the finished product. For example, if you take the word Ramah in Sanskrit and write the ekvachan, dvi-vachan and bahu-vachan, you get ramah, ramau, ramaah. Panini’s grammar tells you how to derive ramah, ramau, ramaah.
I will illustrate some of the grammatical tools of  Ashtadhyayi using examples so that we all can appreciate the work of Panini and the grammarians who preceded and followed him.

प्रत्याहारः

In our life, we are used to abbreviations. When we go to the bank,  instead of saying Demand Draft, we say DD. Instead of saying television, we say TV. A similar concept is introduced by Panini called प्रत्याहारः
प्रत्याहारः  is simply a way of naming a sequence of words. To take an example, अच्. means all letters starting with अ and ending in च्. Let’s go to the Maheshwara Sutra and start with line 1. It starts with अ. Now keep going till you encounter a च्. You find that as the last character on line 4. Now get all the characters from अ toच् (excluding च् ) and you have all your swaras. Thus instead of saying swaras, you say अच्.  
This technique helps condense large information into a small number of letters. If you look at Maheshwara Sutras and the number of possibilities, you can make up a large number of pratyaharas. All you need to do is pick a starting letter and an ending letter. But in fact, only 44 are considered pratyaharas (Panini used 42 in Ashtadyayi)
Now that we have the concept of प्रत्याहारः, let’s see how it is used
In Sanskrit, words ending in swaras are called ajanta. 
अजन्तः = अच् + अन्तः
This means that any word ending (अन्तः) in अच् is  a swara.  Since we defined what अच् is, अजन्तः makes sense.
To see a more complicated example, take the following sutra
इको यण् अचि
Take the first word इको,  which means ‘of इक्’.  Again, look up the Maheswara Sutras and find all the letters that start at इ  and end at क् . Thus you get the following इ उ ऋ ऌ (All the letters at the end of the line are dropped and that’s why we don’t list ण् or क्). The second word यण् lists all the following letters य् व् र् ल्.
The rule is used in यण् संधि. It says, when you encounter इ उ ऋ ऌ, they are replaced by य व र ल respectively. Or in a tabular form, it would look like this

य्
व्
र्
ल्

To see an example, let’s look at प्रति  + एकः = प्रत्येकः
This would be प्र + त् + इ + ए + कः . Based on the table above इ would becomeय्, thus making प्रत्येकः
Let’s take another rule एचोयवायाव:
Splitting this, you get एचः  अय अव आय आव. Using the Maheswara Sutras, you find एचः and get ए ओ ऐ औ. Applying the rest of the rules you get a tabular form like this

अय्
अव्
आय्
आव्

Thus what you get is an algorithm or prakriya  (प्रक्रिया).  In the West, they think algorithms started with Euclid and was formalized by Church and Turing at Princeton in the 1930s.

संज्ञा

The process of naming something is called संज्ञा. Every scientific field has technical terms.  These are technical terms that will be used in Ashtadyayi. The best example is the first sutra in Ashtadyayi.
वृद्धिः  आदैच्.  
This says that the letters in आदै will be called वृद्धिः Once  वृद्धिः is defined, it can be used in other sutras. Another example is १.४.३ यू स्त्र्याख्यौ नदी । Here नदी is defined as ee-karantha and uu-karanatha streelinga words.
It is best to think of these as aliases. There are 91 संज्ञा  in Ashyadyayi and about 66 of them are defined in the first chapter.

उत्सर्ग-अपवादः  

This is the technique based on which Ahstadyayi has been built. When a concept is taught, first the most basic sutra is given. He will then follow it with all the exceptions to that rule.
Let’s look at an example
३.१.६८ कर्तरि शप् ।
३.१.६९ दिवादिभ्यः श्यन् ।
These two follow one after the other. The first one is the basic concept or उत्सर्ग. He then follows it with the exception rule saying, but if it is in दिवादि gana, then here is the exception rule or अपवादः (Don’t worry too much about what is a दिवादि gana)
So taking the basic rule, we have पठ + शप् + ति  = पठति
And the exception rule = नृत् + श्यन् + ति = नृत्यति (Because it is in the दिवादि gana)
Thus again, the algorithm or प्रक्रिया is followed here. You would take the word नृत् and try to apply the उत्सर्ग rule. Then you realize, it belongs to the दिवादि gana and hence you need to apply rule #2. Once you are done with that, the प्रक्रिया terminates. At the same time, if you pick पठ, you know that it does not belong to दिवादि gana. So the first rule is applied and the प्रक्रिया  terminates.

अनुवृत्तिः

This is tied to the concept of उत्सर्ग-अपवादः. Anuvritti is a part of a previous sutra that is carried to the sutras that follow it immediately. An example will make it clear.
७.१.२३ स्वमोर्नपुंसकात् ।
७.१.२४ अतोऽम् ।
This is an example of उत्सर्ग-अपवादः. The first sutra is a general rule for all napumsaka lingas. It says that in napumsaka, सुं or अम्  gets removed and hence वारि remains as वारि
But this does not work for words like फलम् which are a-karantha pullinga.  So it becomes फल + अम्  = फलम्  Here the second sutra is the अपवादः sutra which talks about the exception.
Now, look at the अपवादः rule. The word नपुंसक is not repeated. It is invisible but is required. This concept is अनुवृत्तिः  
To give another example, there is a sutra called इको यण अचि. The second sutra is called एचोयवायाव:. Here the अचि is implied.
Panini does not repeat anything. It helps remove unnecessary repetitions and condense the sutras. Words are removed, but the information that is essential is conveyed.
These are just a few concepts used in Ashtadyayi. There are many others which I have left out.  At an initial glance, these sutras appear terse, dense, allusive and mysterious, but once they are unlocked, they cast a brilliant light on the power of Panini’s mind.

Lessons from Panchatantra – Artha

The evil jackal Damanaka meets the innocent bull Sañjīvaka. Indian painting, 1610.
The evil jackal Damanaka meets the innocent bull Sañjīvaka. Indian painting, 1610.

In the first book of Panchatantra, the merchant Vardhamana sets off from the city of Mahilaropya and has to abandon his bull, Sañjīvaka in the forest. This triggers a set of events involving a lion, Pingalaka, and two jackals, Karataka and Damanaka. Vardhamana considered various career paths and settled on inter-regional trade. In Panchatantra, Vardhamana is a role model, a man who had achieved great wealth due to his karma. A dharmic trader has to offer charity, donations, and construction of religious and civic amenities.
Besides becoming rich, a dharmic person has to generate additional wealth as well.

What has not been obtained should be obtained. What has been obtained, should be kept secure. What is kept secure, should be augmented and expended on the deserving. Even wealth that is protected according to the practices of the world can be suddenly lost due to various calamities. If wealth cannot be used when the occasion for it arises, then it is just as good as not having earned it. Therefore, protection, increase and use of the earned wealth should be done (Natural Enmity: Reflections on the Niti and Rasa of the Pancatantra [Book 1])

This is illustrated using the example of collyrium (anjanam or kohl) and an ant hill. When you have a dabba of collyrium, a small quantity is used daily.  Soon, the dabba becomes empty. Contrast that with the ant hill. Every day, the ant contributes a little, but over time, it becomes – well, an ant hill. The niti shastra, advocates saving money and building capital. At the same time, it advocates against hoarding because all it takes is a natural calamity to destroy it.
Natural Enmity: Reflections on the Niti and Rasa of the Pancatantra [Book 1] by Ashay Naik quotes
upārjitānām arthānāṃ tyāga eva hi rakṣaṇaṃ|
taḍāgodarasaṃsthānāṃ parīvāha ivāṃbhasāma||
[3.1] In order to protect the wealth that has been gained, one must let go of it like the outflow of water that is stagnant in a tank. Hoarded money is comparable to stagnant water – it becomes the harbinger of dregs and diseases. Like water, money should be constantly in circulation.
arthair arthā nibadhyante gajair iva mahāgajāḥ|
na hi anarthavatā śakyaṃ vāṇijyaṃ kartuṃ īhayā||
[3.2] Wealth attaches itself to wealth just as giant elephants to each other. Without outlay of capital, it is not feasible to practice commerce assiduously. Use money to make money. Wealth attracts wealth as – we have a nice ancient metaphor here – elephants attach to other elephants.
Panchatantra adds two more aspects of money management to the existing thought. Till those times, it was considered that one should acquire and protect wealth. But Panchatantra argues that one should consider the application and augmentation of wealth as well. Vanijya, cannot happen without capital investment.
In socialist India, before the economy was opened up in the early 90s, being wealthy had a bad connotation. Popular culture showcased the wealthy as people surrounded by henchmen and molls, roaring with laughter without any purpose who took special fascination to poor blind mothers. In Kerala, we took it one step further. These villains built their houses next to a pool housing hungry crocodiles, into which the hero would be dunked.
Gaining wealth is not bad. As per our tradition, it is part of one of the four purusharthas, along with dharma, kama, and moksha. The testimony to that is the graph below

The global contribution to world's GDP by major economies from 1 CE to 2003 CE according to Angus Maddison's estimates.[65] Up until the early 18th century, China and India were the two largest economies by GDP output.
The global contribution to world’s GDP by major economies from 1 CE to 2003 CE according to Angus Maddison’s estimates. Up until the early 18th century, China and India were the two largest economies by GDP output.

The graph shows the global contribution to world’s GDP by major economies from 1 CE to 2003 CE according to Angus Maddison’s estimates. Up until the early 18th century, China and India were the two largest economies by GDP output.
Once the enlightened Europeans took over, it was a disaster. This disaster was prolonged in 1947 by a family, who had no grounding in dharma. Vishnu Sharma wrote the Panchatantra to educate the foolish sons of a king. If only the fools, who crashed the country into a ditch had read any of this.

Revisionist History

Revisionist History by CREDIT - Bill Hudson, AP
CREDIT – Bill Hudson, AP

The above picture was taken in 1963, during a protest march for civil rights, in the United States. This was the time in history when Martin Luther King and his people were organizing sit-ins, boycotts, and marches to protest their oppression. They were looking for a means to turn public opinion in their favor by provoking the police.
They got their moment on that day in 1963. The protest march started at a church near the Kelly Ingram Park. Besides the protestors, there was a crowd to watch the march and police to control both of them. The police stood between the spectators and the protestors. And they had dogs. Then the dog, controlled by a white police officer, attacked one of the foot soldiers, an innocent looking black boy.
The picture became famous. Newspapers printed it above the fold. The President was asked about it; Congress discussed it; there were debates around the country. Eventually, the civil rights act was passed.
All of this was fine, except that the photo did not represent the reality. This was the topic of a recent Revisionist History podcast.
The boy in the picture was Walter Gadsden. He had skipped school and was walking to meet a friend when he saw the protests. He moved away from the marchers when he was attacked by the dog. In a later interview, Gadsden revealed that he had no connection to the civil rights movement. He was neither a participant nor a foot soldier. Also, the police officer had not unleashed the dog on the boy; he was trying to pull the dog away to save the boy.
There is a statue at the Kelly Ingram Park in Birmingham which memorializes this incident. The dog attacking the boy scene has been immortalized; a powerful memory which people had chosen to preserve. The Podcast makes the case that even though that particular incident was technically wrong, the statue is an art (the dog turns into a wolf, the boy is falling down) needs to be seen as an interpretation.
Thus does it matter that the basis of the statue at Kelly Ingram Park was incorrect? Doesn’t it miss the big picture of what happened in 1963? Did police use dogs at that time? Sure they did. These kind of gotcha stories are an example of missing the forest for the trees. Societies which are not obsessed with these low-level details have ways to abstract the wisdom of events into stories which can be retold.

The Power of Habit

The Power of Habit is a best-selling book which explains how habits are formed and how you can develop good habits. According to the book, habits have three components (1) a cue (2) a routine and (3) a reward. For example, a cue could be the time 3 pm, the routine would be to go and find something sweet to eat, and the reward would be the joy. If you want to change the habit, you have to realize these components. After that, you can change by keeping the same cue and reward, but by changing the routine. Thus instead of downing chocolates, you can go for a walk. (Read a detailed review of the book or listen to a podcast with the author)
When I read the book, it felt as if I had seen this elsewhere, with more depth. So I went back to Patanjali’s Yogasutras with commentary by Swami Vivekananda.
First, Swamiji talks about how habits are formed. Imagine a lake. Each action we take is like a pulsation over the lake. Once the pulsation dies out, what remains are the impressions of those pulsations. When a large number of these impressions are left on the mind, it becomes a habit and it becomes our nature. If some good impressions remain, then we become good and if some wicked impressions remain, we become wicked.
Swami then talks about how to change bad habits. While Duhigg talks about replacing the routine with a different one, Yogasutras talks about replacing a bad habit with a counter habit. The base habits which are deeply ingrained in our mind automatically kick in every situation. The only way to change the base impressions on the mind is by doing good things, thinking holy thoughts and various other yoga practices. These help overwrite the base impressions with new ones, thus transforming you at a deeper level.
This transformation does not happen over night; it requires long continued practice. For example, when you start skiing, you will fall down a lot. Do you give up because others are making fun of you or do you have enough internal power to continue? Do the opinion of others control you or do you have mastery over yourself? Do you have enough vairagyam?
The drawback of Duhigg’s method is that once the cue happens, it can be strong enough to over power the mind. If the waves are strong, then you will not even realize you have carried out the routine; It might hit as a regret later. Thus you need to intercept the waves even before they become a swell. That requires transformation at a subtle level, that the practices mentioned in the Yogasutras can help.
 

The Self-Validating, Self-Sustaining Transcendental System

The best way of knowing something is through direct experience. You watch a beautiful sunrise and you feel joy. There is nothing here that deludes the senses. Another way is through inference. Observing that there is a distortion caused by some invisible object in space, astronomers infer that there is a black hole nearby. Though this is not direct perception, this seems like a perfectly rational way.
There is another way of knowing which is experiential. For example, yogis perceive certain truths by going beyond the mind. They profoundly alter their consciousness and experience heightened levels of insights. They experience knowledge beyond the senses and we consider them sacred. Raja Yoga has detailed descriptions of these experiences. The biographies of Sri M (See Apprenticed to a Himalayan Master) or Paramahamsa Yogananda contain experiences which would be considered blasphemy in dogmatic traditions.
This also gives an opportunity for charlatans to claim the same experience. Since it is the experience of one person, how can one validate it? Usually, when two of our perceptions do not contradict, that is proof enough, but here are talking about experiences beyond ordinary perceptions.
Rather than depending on a central authority, these systems are self-validating. There are few simple rules which can help to figure out if the person is making up things or if this is really a sacred experience. These are simple rules which long living civilizations can hold in their memory.
They are

  1. It should not contradict past knowledge in that tradition
  2. It must be true knowledge by someone who has transcended the senses.
  3. It depends on the character of the man
  4. This experience must be verifiable.
  5. He should not be selling this knowledge

In science, if a mass murderer like Stalin, makes a discovery, it is acceptable. That is not acceptable in dharmic traditions. The person has to be sattvic, following a well-established path (See No one does yoga anymore)
If someone says, this is an experience that only I can have and that the rest of us have to trust that, it has to be rejected. In scientific traditions, anyone should be able to have those experiences, provided they follow the right path.
Once we understand this, it is easy to figure out why there is so much hatred towards a decentralized, self-validating and self-sustaining tradition which has sustained for millennia. The fact that anyone can be divine goes against the only-one-divine-person-and-trust-him dogma. Belief in this dogma causes them to destroy anyone who does not believe so. (All in the name of “religious freedom”). Once you become a dogmatic prisoner of science too, you shut yourself from these possibilities by restricting yourself to what is directly perceived and inferred. Our mind and body are capable of much more.
Reference: Patanjali Yoga-Sutra by Swami Vivekananda (Kindle Edition – India, US)

No One Does Yoga Anymore

Yoga is a multi billion dollar industry in America and yet it has nothing to do with Yoga. In the 1970s, Neem Karoli Baba said that no one does Hatha Yoga anymore and the American Yoga industry proves just that. What Neem Karoli Baba said was Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra’s has steps to acknowledge our spiritual aspects and it assumes that you have completed two steps prior to embarking on the third one, which is Asana, which is what Yoga studios focus on.
The first two steps are Yama (ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya and aparigraha) and Niyama (Saucha, Samtosa, Tapas, Svadhyaya, Isvara pranidhana). Just look at the last item, Isvara pranidhana. According to Yoga journal, it is surrender to God (the one with the capital G). That’s their game. That’s not what Patanjali means though. He means Ishvara and not God. They both are not the same.
Swami Vivekananda writes that Ishvara has to be worshiped by praise, by thought and by devotion. Will atheists do that? But when you are getting a pie of the multi billion dollar cake, you don’t want to throw Yama and Niyama and Ishvara at your clients.

Ayodhya: Marxist Mischief

“The Ram temple is to a Hindu, what Mecca and Medina are to a Muslim. A Muslim cannot imagine both these places under the control of another religion. Muslims should feel the pain of a Hindu, whose religious places are under the control another religion, even though they live in a Hindu-majority country. Hindus believe Babri Masjid is Ram Janmabhoomi. This place has nothing to do with Prophet Muhammad. It relates only to Babar. So why should there be such a fight over this place?”
That was Archaeological Survey of India archaeologist K K Muhammed speaking to Indians which included SIMI supporters in Oman before 1992. He continued:
“When the Al-Aqsa Mosque or Bayt al-Muqaddas was taken over by the Jews, we Muslims of Kerala, met at our local mosque. We cried and prayed to Allah to return Bayt al-Muqaddas back to us. The pain that a Muslim felt when he lost Bayt al-Muqaddas, is the pain that a Hindu feels now. I am not talking about the modern, educated Hindus. I am talking about those Hindus, who in the freezing cold of North India, walk without shirt or shoes, just to have a glimpse of Rama. We should understand their pain and suffering.”
The crowd was silent. “After Independence, a separate country was created for Muslims. After that, India could have become a Hindu nation. But Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Azad did not do that. That shows their high level of thinking. For this, the man who walked in just a dhoti had to sacrifice his life.”
“Imagine if India was a Muslim majority country. Would it have been secular? No. If Hindus were given a separate country, the Muslim majority would not have declared India to be secular. This is the greatness of Hinduism. This is their tolerance. That is something we should understand and respect. If, instead of Hindus, India had some other religion as the majority religion, what would have been the state of Muslims? We should understand all this and make the right moves and only then a nation will become secular. This reverse thinking is required.”
Then someone asked. “If we return three sites back to Hindus, won’t they ask for more?”
Muhammed replied, “We are talking about compromise here. If such a thing happens, Hindus themselves will oppose it. Bajrang Dal, VHP, Ram Sena, such militant organizations don’t have support among Hindus”
The above speech and Muhammed’s role in the archaeology and politics of Ayodhya is mentioned in his autobiography ഞാനെന്ന ഭാരതീയൻ (Me, the Indian). His teacher at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) was Prof. Irfan Habib and besides learning history, Muhammed was also able to learn about the politics of historiography.
When the above meeting was over, some youngsters took Muhammed to a room and asked why he did not mention all of this to Syed Shahabuddin.
In fact Muhammed had mentioned this to Syed Shahabuddin. While working in Patna as an archaeologist, Muhammed had to deal with a BJP MP Jawahar Prasad, who wanted to expand a temple in an archaeological site. At that time, it was a BJP government at the center.Though it was risky opposing an MP belonging to that party, feeling the need to oppose what was not right, Muhammed fought against this move and succeeded. This won a commendation from Syed Shahabuddin and a subsequent meeting. When Muhammed bought up compromising on Ayodhya, Shahabuddin did not agree.
During this period there was confusion regarding the Ayodhya issue. Was the masjid really built over the Ram temple? Or were the Hindus making it up?
Muhammed writes that Marxist historians like S. Gopal, Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra decided to lend their support to the Muslim extremists; they questioned the historicity of Ramayana; they wrote that there was no mention of the demolition of the temple till the 19th century; they started arguing that Ayodhya was a Buddhist-Jain center. The others of this group were Suraj Bhan (the only archaeologist), R. S. Sharma, Akhtar Ali, and D N Jha.
All of them testified as part of various government committees. The Babri Masjid Action Committee’s meetings were held under the leadership of Indian Council of Historical Research’s chairman, Irfan Habib. Prof. MGS Narayanan opposed this, but that had no impact. Muhammed believes that Irfan Habib did not want a solution to the Ayodhya problem. Anyone at ICHR who advocated reconciliation would be branded as a communalist following a familiar pattern.
But was there any need for this confusion? Muhammed did not think so. He knew because he was inside the Masjid in 1976 – 1977 as a student conducting studies under Prof. B. B. Lal. Then he saw 14 pillars of the temples which were made of Black Basalt. The base of these pillars had the 11th century style poorna kalasam, one of the eight symbols of prosperity. When they excavated the sides and the back of the Masjid, they found bricks which were the foundations of these pillars. On the basis of this, Muhammed was sure that a temple definitely existed. At that time, one one thought this would turn controversial.
Muhammed writes, he knows there were moderate Muslims who were willing to compromise and hand over the temple to the Hindus in the 1990s. Vishwa Hindu Parishad had taken a hard stance and some Muslim leaders thought if they returned the Masjid back, then VHP would not have any more issues to raise. That’s when Marxists got in the fray.
When historians and archaeologists formed two groups and were screaming at each other, Muhammed made the claim that he had seen evidence of the temple inside the mosque.This was published in all the Kerala editions of the Indian Express. Some congratulated him for speaking out. Some threatened him.
The Director General of ASI, MC Joshi asked Muhammed, how he could make a public statement on a controversial topic without permission, a crime for which he could be suspended.
Muhammed replied लोकसंग्रहमेवापि सम्पश्यन्कर्तुमर्हसि from the Gita (3.20)
RC, Tripathi, who was the Joint Secretary angrily asked, if Muhammed was teaching Sanskrit to an Allahabad Brahmin like him, to which he replied स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेय: (3.35)
Tripathi calmed down and said, “there is lot of pressure to take action against you”. Muhammed said, he was aware, but he felt obliged to tell the truth. He got transferred to Goa instead of getting suspended.
Once Babri Masjid was demolished, evidence overflowed. The most important one was the Vishnu-Hari plaque. It had Sanskrit written in nagari script of the 11th century which proclaimed that the temple was dedicated to Vishnu who killed Bali and Ravana. YD Sharma and KM Srivastava during an 1992 study found murtis of various avatars of Vishnu and also of Shiva and Parvati dating to the Kushan period (100 – 300 CE). In 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered an excavation and during that period, they found more than 50 platforms made of bricks. Finally, a total of 263 artifacts were found.
Based on this evidence Archaeological Survey of India concluded that there was indeed a temple below the mosque. Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court also came to the same conclusion.
What is interesting is how the Marxist historians behaved after the report came out. They started flip flopping. Muhammed says that the people who participated in the excavation as part of the Babri Masjid Action Committee were not archaeologists. Some of them had technical knowledge of archaeology, but no field experience. None of them were a match for the head, Dr. B R Mani.
Muhammed writes that while these historians created the narrative, the propaganda was disseminated by publications like Times of India which decided to publish these one sided accounts. Due to this, any chance of Muslims handing over Ayodhya over to Hindus was scuttled. Muhammed blames Marxist historians for destroying Hindu-Muslim unity in the country and making the country pay a big price for it.

Prof. Irfan Habib’s “Secularism”

Njannenna Bharatheeyan by K K Muhammed
Njannenna Bharatheeyan by K K Muhammed

Few decades back, at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Prof. Irfan Habib  summoned his former student and now faculty member K K Muhammed to his office.  Muhammed had discovered Ibādat Khāna in Fatepur Sikri. Built by Akbar in 1575 CE, the  Ibādat Khāna was the place where various religious scholars held discussions. A major discovery, this was reported in various newspapers, something which Prof. Habib was not too happy about. The conversation went as follows:
Irfan Habib: “This is not Ibādat Khāna”
Muhammed: “No? This is not Ibādat Khāna?”
IH: “What you gave in Times of India is not Ibādat Khāna”
M: “How can you say that? Are you an archaeologist?”
IH: “I may not be as good an archaeologist like you”
M: “Sorry, you are not an archaeologist.” Irfan Habib was speechless.
Habib pushed a paper to Muhammed and said, “write what you discovered is not Ibādat Khāna”. Muhammed refused and walked away.
After working both at AMU and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in various designations, K K Muhammed has now written an autobiography in Malayalam titled, ഞാനെന്ന ഭാരതീയൻ (Me, the Indian), which has details of his encounters with Prof. Habib and his cabal. As part of his education,  Mr. Muhammed learned how a historian becomes secular.
When Muhammed reached AMU as a student, he was initially excited to have someone as famous as Prof. Habib as his teacher. Muhammed recollects, “As a teacher, he did not make any impact on me.” His other classmates too had similar opinion. This news reached Habib’s ears. Muhammed ran for the Student’s Union as a Congressman. This too did not go well with the Marxists and they decided to contain him. This would cause various encounters between the Irfan Habib group and Muhammed and they are detailed in the first few chapters of the book.
Due to some Machiavellian maneuvers by the Marxists, Muhammed did not get admission as a researcher and hence opted for archaeology.  After completing his post-graduate diploma in Archaeology, he returned to AMU. He thanks Habib for blocking his path, because it led him to archaeology where he made a name for himself by discovering not just the  Ibādat Khāna, but also a Christian Church, Akbar had built for the missionaries.
The Marxist attack came in multiple ways. First, they tried to prove that the discovery was not Muhammed’s. That failed. The second attack claimed that if Muhammed had discovered this, then it could not be the Ibādat Khāna. Soon after that Habib became the Head of the Department and that’s when the direct confrontation mentioned earlier happened.
Muhammed was a Communist sympathizer, but what he encountered in the campus was a new form of it. The petty version. Muhammed writes that he could never get along with Irfan Habib.
Habib group could cause career damage. They controlled the purse strings: they could decide who got scholarships or who would be admitted as researchers.  If you were not part of his group, you were branded communal. Independent thinking was anathema. But if you joined his group, you became secular.
How a communalist turns
How a communalist turns “secular”

For this Muhammed cites the example of Prof. Ramachandra Gaur, with whom he worked. An enemy of Habib, Prof. Gaur was branded an RSS man. Once he became the Head of the Department, he changed his allegiance. Gaur also advised Muhammed that it was better to switch to Habib’s group for career advancement. Once Prof. Gaur joined the Habib group, he was considered “secular”. Muhammed says, he refused to follow Gaur’s example.
Another encounter he mentions, occurred in front of an interview panel consisting of among others, the Vice Chancellor and Habib. During the interview, the Vice Chancellor said he could not consider anyone for AMU, who did not respect Prof.Habib. Muhammed replied that respect has to be earned not demanded. He mentioned how a person who got less marks than him was admitted as a researcher. Another case was when someone with less marks and no Post-Graduate diploma was given the post of Asst. Archaeologist instead of him. Muhammed also had evidence against a false accusation that Irfan Habib had made. While Muhammed said all of this, Irfan Habib sat with his eyes down. Muhammed, writes, “His behavior towards me changed, but I was sure he would stab me at the first opportunity”
Muhammed writes that Prof. Habib preferred people who flattered him like Makkan Lal.  Prof. Habib tried to get Prof. Makkan Lal as the deputy director instead of Muhammed. When this was challenged by Muhammed in court, Makkan Lal became an ally of Irfan Habib. Muhammed writes, “Unholy alliances are short lived”. By the time of the World Archaeology Congress in Delhi, the Habib group and Makkan Lal group were openly fighting and in the  Babri Masjid dispute, Irfan Habib and Makkan Lal were on the opposite sides.
Muhammed was finally selected as the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist at the Archaeological Survey of India. According to Muhammed, Prof. Habib. met the Director General of ASI and asked him to reject Muhammed. The DG replied that it was a UPC selection and he did not have the power to reject it. Then Prof. Habib had one final request. Don’t post him in Agra. (What if he discovers something else). Muhammed was posted to Madras Circle. But he would visit AMU for lectures and then efforts were made to block them. The only place where they were successful in blocking him was at JNU (no big surprise there), but everywhere else Muhammed was able to speak freely.
In the foreward of the book, Prof M G S Narayanan, too writes about Prof. Habib. According to Prof. MGS, Prof. Habib  has poisoned, not just history, but culture and social life by his narrow groupism, nepotism and treachery. At the same time, he writes that Prof. Habib is a hard working person, but crafty. His group would threaten, cheat and would be part of various intrigues. Anyone who criticized this group would be branded a Hindutvavaadi and communalist. At the same time, Prof. MGS says, Prof. Habib is not an Muslim Fundamentalist. He is not sure, even if he is a believer. Prof. MGS attributes this group for making Babri Masjid a national issue.
According to Muhammed, it was during the Babri Masjid time that his mask of secularism came off. As the head of a government body (ICHR), he should not have taken sides in the dispute. People saw this as an effort to to increase his influence by taking sides with the Muslim side in the dispute. The one historian who had to courage to say that the head of ICHR should not take sides in the dispute was Prof. M G S Narayanan. Prof. MGS initially had a great opinion of Prof. Irfan Habib. He even disagreed with Muhammed on his opinion of Prof. Habib, Once Prof. MGS worked with Prof. Habib in ICHR, he realized that truth of Muhammed’s statements. Not being able to work with Irfan Habib, he left ICHR. Very soon Prof. MGS was branded with the Hindutva label.
These are just few select incidents from the first few chapters of the book. It is these petty people who get to define Indian history on  if a Ram temple existed or if Saraswati flowed in India or in Afghanistan (see The Lost River). This is the price for continuing the British practice for having an “official” history. We have become bystanders while our history has been hijacked by Marxists  like Prof. Irfan Habib.