Ending violence is duty of each person: Sri Prasanna Sagar Maharaj Jain seer

Jain Muni Sri Prasanna Sagar Maharaj, who is participating in Chaturmasa, will be in Mysore till October 25. He is known for his revolutionary

thoughts on religions. He tells M B Maramkal violence can be conqured through united efforts.

Excerpts

Q: What is your perception about violence which has increased manifold compared to ancient days?

A: Violence was there in the past and it is continuing. But the dimension and definition have changed. In the past, man fought for his survival. Now, his fight is for prestige with ego playing a major role. Violence can be conquered. Every individual plays a role in ending or preventing violence.

Q: From where does your optimism on ending violence originate?

A: India has over 60 lakh religious leaders. People like Sri Sri Ravishanker Guruji and Tarun Sagar Maharaj should take the lead in uniting all these saints, seers, munis and sadhus to root out violence.

Q: Do you think preachings of saintly people will have any impact on people who are violent?

A: Things may not change on a single day. Like how a drop of water trickling on a rock for years leaves its mark on it, definitely a sustained effort will yield results.

Q: What is your opinion on alleged involvement of Islmic groups in terrorism?

A: Islam is a great religion and there is no place for violence in it. I have read Quran. If someone is indulging in violence in the name of religion it is not the fault of the religion, but of the misguided elements.

Q: What is your message to the society?

A: None is happy. If the poor is worried about what to eat, the rich is worried about what and what not to eat. People should shun the western culture of "hotelme jio, hospitalme maro" (live in hotel, die in hospital). Ultimately Indian culture and satsang will help in resolving the issues.

Q: What is your opinion about politics and the role of religion in it?

A: Religion and politics should have sugar-water relationship.

There is Probably No God

PRAKASH SHESH

The religion of reason
There is growing support for the ‘atheist bus campaign’ in the UK, US, Canada and parts of Europe

Just as the Church publicly exhorts the faithful to follow religion, various atheist groups came together as the British Humanist Association and decided to broadcast their viewpoint by purchasing advertising space on London’s buses. Non-believers were asked to coin interesting slogans and to contribute to campaign finances.

Richard Dawkins, the biologist, admirer of Charles Darwin and author of ‘The God Delusion’, announced he would match the money raised from the public. The scheme set a modest target of £5000 to be raised through public donations. But the actual collection was in excess of £150,000. It was a pointer to the campaign’s appeal and the chord it struck with many. Instead of 40 buses bearing the advertisement, it was eventually carried on 200 — much to the chagrin of the church.

The church complained to the advertising regulatory authority that the campaign was in bad taste and bound to hurt religious sentiment. The adjudicating authority rejected the complaint citing the primacy of “freedom of expression”. Some of the slogans used were:

• There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy yourself.
• You can be good without God.

There were variations too. Two dozen buses in Manhattan, New York, loudly proclaimed: “You don’t have to believe in God to be a moral or ethical person”. And in an acerbic twist to the Bible’s opening sentence, the slogan used on 25 buses in Chicago was, “In the beginning, Man created God.”

In a retaliatory campaign, the Christian party in London hit back with its own advertisement for God. It said, “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life”. The transport authorities were, of course, delighted that so much ad revenue was coming their way.

The campaign has spread to Canada and Europe and shows signs of travelling further afield. The atheist associations have happily declared that their main objective has been achieved. Should the church want them to authenticate their claims, the argument can easily be turned on its head by asking the church to prove its case.

The surprising element in all of this is that the 80% of the UK is a “believer”, according to surveys. The US is similarly devout and about 90% of Americans also believe in miracles. In fact, the US is probably the only country in the world that proclaims its faith in God on its currency with the printed affirmation 'In God we trust'.

Why then, would so many join the atheist campaign? Is religion losing its sheen? And what would happen if this campaign came to India? Would local municipalities risk their buses getting burnt for 'blasphemy'? Would political parties be glad of a ready-made opportunity to establish their role as guardians of culture? Would the government show the same maturity in handling the issue as it did in its response to the judgment on Section 377?

Surprisingly, despite its religiosity, India is home to many religions that deny the existence of God. Gautam Buddha clearly asked his followers not to accept even his preaching if it failed to pass the test of reason. Buddha’s argument was that if God is omnipresent, why is there so much evil all around? Buddhism also rejects the idea of a soul in a human body.

Jainism, which follows the teachings of Mahavira, propounds that the concept of God is falsehood (mithya). Mahavira believed that the universe had no beginning and so, there could not be a creator. Jainism asks human beings to exploit the huge amount of energy stored within each of us instead of searching for it elsewhere.

Hinduism — the religion of a large majority of Indians — officially accepts that atheists can continue to be Hindus. India has produced many towering personalities who did not believe in God. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his traditional upbringing, was an avowed nonbeliever. The Indian atheist list would include: Babasaheb Ambedkar, Veer Savarkar, Ram Manohar Lohia, Manavendranath Roy, Ramasamy Naicker (his protégés MG Ramachandran and Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi), Baba Amte and Khushwant Singh. Atheism not only rejects faith in life after death, spirits and God, but is also severely critical of religious principles that do not stand the test of scientific scrutiny.

Hindu mythology believes that Brihaspati is the presiding deity of atheists. His philosophy is known as the Charvaka (or Lokayata) school of thought, which rejects Vedic doctrine and ridicules ritual as self-serving procedures of no real benefit to anyone. An estimated 2% of India’s Hindus are atheist. Few of them are aware that their religion allows for atheism. Most of them believe that society regards the atheist as abnormal, immoral and irreligious and this is why many atheists are wary of publicly admitting to their beliefs.

Ironically, in a country where atheism is a legitimate part of religion, a bus campaign similar to the one in the West would probably run into massive trouble. There would probably be widespread protest. Hindu philosophy is very liberal and extremely tolerant towards every living being, including plants and animals, there is no official costume, fixed days for worship, insistence on ritual, no desire to proselytize and ‘grow’ the religion beyond its current geographical boundaries, no rigid methodology for religious procedure. Hinduism gives its followers complete and utter liberty to choose their deity. Hinduism is tolerant but can we say that of all its followers?

(The author is a management consultant)

Worries are our comfort zone

PARAMAHAMSA NITHYANANDA

If we really want to come out of our worries, we can come out right now, without trying to justify any of our worries. Our very worries become our comfort zone. We hide in them. Hiding and merely talking about them helps us to remain lazy. Someone asks Mahavira, the enlightened Jain master, 'Who is the one who has worries?’ He replies, 'The person who is worried.'

They ask him, 'What is the cause of worry?' He replies, 'Laziness.' Then they ask him, 'Who ends worries?' He replies, 'Man himself.' They ask him, 'How can worry be ended?' He replies, 'By dropping laziness.'

If you drop laziness, you fall into right action. And when you fall into right action, you drop worry. Your comfort with worry can be understood even from the way you react to other people's worries. If you observe yourself keenly, you will realise that whenever a person talks to you about his worries, you never give him a solution straightaway and by allowing him to indulge in his worries, you are not only encouraging him, but you are also encouraging yourself to remain comfortably in the worry zone.

Worry can never have an external cause. Externally, events happen. They continue to happen. But your response to these worries is decided by your inner space. If you choose to respond with worry, be very clear, somewhere within yourself, you are giving into the laziness of your comfort zone where you can simply sit and worry without moving into action. A man and his wife were hurrying to their seats after a movie intermission. In a very concerned way, the man asked the lady at the end of a row, 'Did I step on your toes on the way out?'

'Yes you did,' the lady answered back angrily. The man said, 'All right then, this is our row.' Worry literally becomes 'our row'! We are very comfortable with our worries although we claim that we suffer because of them. If we really want to come out of it, we will come out immediately! The question is whether we want to come out of it or remain in it.

If we want a solution to a problem, we should never dwell upon the problem even for a second. We should simply switch to the solution. For every worry there is an instant solution. Most of the time, we prefer to stay in the comfort zone of our worry. It keeps us settled. We choose to have it as our comfort zone and we reinforce it again and again. Trying to change your impression to beat worry is like trying to change the projector screen to see a different slide. Be Blissful!

Tension of Opposites Central to Existence

In the book Tuesdays with Morrie, Morrie asks: ‘‘Have I told you about the tensions of opposites?’’ I wondered. The tension of opposites? He continues: ‘‘Life is a series of pulls — back and forth. You want to do one thing, but are bound to do something else. Something hurts you and yet you know it shouldn’t. You take certain things for granted, even when you know you should never take anything for granted. A tension of opposites, like a pull on a rubber band. And most of us live somewhere in the middle.’’

According to Acharya Mahaprajna, opposition is a fundamental rule for existence. ‘‘There is no type of existence in which opposites do not co-exist. In a sense, existence may also be defined as the coming together of opposites. It is the principle of the quest for unity between two apparently different characteristics of a substance. It tries to point out that the characteristics which differences have, also have an identicality. Reconciliation, which is a principle of anekant, comes about only with the recognition of the identity principle.’’

At the interpersonal level, if we are able to recognize that another person can have an opinion different from ours and if we can acknowledge that both can exist — he with his opinion and I with mine — we would not have any wars. Acharya Mahaprajna says that when we enter a garden full of flowers, we look at nature’s diversity and we get ecstatic. But we don’t look upon mental diversity — when faced with differing opinions — as beautiful; they become cause for conflict.

If we look at the working environment, many of the problems are born out of intolerance towards contradictory opinions. In the Mahabharata, a yaksha questions Yudhishtra: ‘‘What is forbearance?’’ Yudhishtra answers that forbearance is putting up with opposites. To reconcile opposing forces is in fact what tolerance is made up of.

Yudhishtra defined forbearance in terms of opposites. Interestingly, existence itself is defined in terms of opposites. This verse from the Kamba Ramayana describes Ayodhya, the land of King Dasaratha: ‘‘There was no charity for there was none to beg,/ Valour was never seen for there was none who dared to challenge/ Truth did not stand out, for none did speak a lie/ Wisdom did not show, for all were well versed.’’

So do opposites define existence? For charity to exist, non-charity too has to be defined. How can one define light if there is no darkness? How do we understand something as being the truth unless there are lies? In the absence of foolishness, how to define wisdom?
Lao Tzu said: ‘‘When all the world understands beauty to be beautiful, then ugliness exists; when all understand goodness to be good, the evil exists.’’

So beauty is relative — to ugliness. Goodness is relative to evil.

Acharya Maha-prajna explains the logic of Jain philo-sophers: That which is true contains its opposite — yat sat, tat sa pratipaksham. Lao Tzu writes: ‘‘In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first./ In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first/ In order to take one will surely give first/ This is called subtle wisdom.’’ Lao Tzu’s wisdom also tells us that ‘‘Be bent and you will remain straight/ Be vacant and you will remain full/ Be worn and you will remain new.’’
In the opposite lies the affirmation of an attribute. This seems to be true at all levels. Even within the atom, the electron has an anti- particle called photon. Writes Richard Feynman, “Photons look exactly the same in all respects when they travel backwards in time... so they are their own anti-particles.”

The distinction remains, whether it is direct or subtle as it is in the case of very small particles: Even if the particle and anti-particle are neutral, like the neutrino and anti neutrino.

Courts y: Speaking Tree, TOI

Understanding Jainism

By Dr. Vasupal Parikh

Jainism is one of the oldest living spiritual philosophies. However, it is little known, probably because Jainism is really neither a faith nor a religion in the sense in which most of us now understand these terms.

Jains do indeed follow the teachings of the Jinas – a series of twenty four Tirthankaras, or teachers, spanning the period 8,500 BCE to 600 BCE. These Tirthankars preached that the universe governs itself by a set of natural laws, and that - everyone can shape his/her destiny. Theydeveloped a spiritual path for mastering one’s own destiny, but did not claim that they preached an unalterable truth, nor did they demand that their concept of natural theology be accepted through the mere act of faith. On the contrary, they insisted that anyone who wished to attain the enlightenment and bliss they had attained should experiment for themselves, by embarking on the suggested spiritual path and retaining what was useful and abandoning what was not. The ultimate reward is complete understanding of “Absolute Reality” and Moksha, (total liberation). Moksha empowers one’s soul with unlimited perception, knowledge, happiness, and unlimited energy. However, those who could not complete the journey would still reap the rewards of unprecedented happiness, peace, and tranquility.

Thus, Jainism is an experiment-based logical system. It shows a proven path to liberation, but advises us to develop our faith in it on the basis of personal intuition (rational vision), critical or rational study of the vision (rational knowledge), and personal experimentation and experience of the journey (rational lifestyle). These three – Rational Vision, Rational Knowledge, and Rational Lifestyle – form the core of Jainism and are called ‘the Three Jewels.”

Jain philosophy is classified as ‘natural theology’ because its world vision is based on a self-governing Nature (or Universe) as a superpower. Its laws and natural principles apply not just for humans and not just locally, but far beyond throughout the entire universe. The universe in this vision consists of six eternal entities - Soul, Matter, Space, Time, the Principle of Change and the Principle of Resistance to change (stability). Every thing in the universe results from the natural interaction of these six entities. Every living being (regardless of its form) is a soul entangled with matter, and ‘moksha’ (liberation) is simply a freeing of the soul from its entanglement. This world vision has the soul as the most important entity and has given rise to the three principal doctrines, known as the ‘Triple ‘A’s of Jainism. These are:

1. A himsa (non-violence) - respect and reverence for every living being
2. A nekantwada (multi-faceted reality) - consideration of different opinions and viewpoints to gain a better understanding of the truth (reality), which has many facets, and
3. A prigraha - limiting personal needs and possessions, because these not only harm the environment but also generate unreasonable attachment to objects that impede spiritual progress.
   

Thus Jainism is neither a ‘faith’ nor a ‘religion’, but a rational philosophy for spiritual progress, well being of all living beings, personal and global peace, and environmental protection. Jains have followed this system for centuries as a non-violent, peaceful community. Its three ‘A’s provide much needed wisdom and direction for alleviating, if not resolving, many of the problems threatening our planet in the 21^st century. Current world challenges include fundamentalism, terrorism, war, global poverty, and human and environmental degradation. Jainism offers advice in addressing these issues, and the time has come to examine this philosophy carefully and perhaps take its world vision seriously.

Practice Makes Perfect: It Means Hard Work

Acharya Mahaprajna

What kind of sadhana is it that does not result in the abatement of all passion? The whole system of spirituality and all religious tales are designed to subdue passion.

According to Mahavira, eating is the greatest obstacle to self-control; it gives rise to indolence. How can he who is not moderate in eating, ever conquer sloth? How can a person who does not get rid of lethargy, indolence and negligence, ever achieve self-control?

Begin the practice of self-control with fasting. Eat less. This is the first principle of self-control. The second relates to the body. It is necessary for us to exercise control over the body, to train it.

Start by contemplating upon and practising good habits, and by inhibiting bad habits. Our nerves and muscles are accustomed to function in a particular way and if we do not effect a change, we go on mechanically as before. We have a longing for sweets on certain occasions, because the tongue is accustomed to a particular taste.

The nerves and muscles come to demand something, which they are accustomed to having on a particular occasion.

In the matter of eating, thinking or doing any other work, our sinews habitually function in the manner we have accustomed them to function. Those who live in a lofty building, are at first extremely careful while descending the stairs.

Gradually, they become accustomed to the act and after some time they do it mechanically. To begin with, the novice-typists look at each letter before they type it, but with practice, their fingers move freely without the necessity of looking at the keyboard since the fingers have grown accustomed to it.

Similarly, in any undertaking, our sinews start working in the manner we have accustomed them to function, and the task stands fulfilled without any conscious effort on our part.

One practises meditation today, gives the sinews a taste of meditation and accustoms them to it. Next day, however, he does no meditation, nor the day after. On the fourth day, he sits down to meditate again. Practising by fits and starts does not help in the cultivation of habit. Do not be remiss.

Keep practising daily. Irregular practice is not conducive to the confirmation of the habit of retrospection.

You practise forgiveness today, show tolerance, but quarrel and fight the next day, forgive again and yet again quarrel and fight — this will not confirm in you the habit of forgiveness. If you want to cultivate a habit, do it without any reservation, without any remissness till it is firmly established.

That is the second principle of body training, of accustoming the body to bear pain and discomfort. This state of indifference is achieved through the practice of asanas, pranayama and kayotsarga. The body is so trained as to perform any task you command.

The third principle of self-control is living in seclusion. It means not to allow the present moment to continue but to reverse it. There are two orders — the order of nature and the order of sadhana.

All our sexual impulses originate from the Centre of Energy and it is with the help of this centre that man fulfils his sexual desire. It is a centre provided by nature for gratification of sexual urge. By living in seclusion, we can change it.

As told to Lalit Garg