Monday, March 21, 2011

Spirituality Anyone ? - A HARD HITTING SPEECH BY JAVED AKHTAR

SPEECH: JAVED AKHTAR

I am quite sure ladies and gentlemen, that in this august assembly nobody would envy my position at this moment. Speaking after such a charismatic and formidable personality like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is like coming out of the pavilion to play after Tendulkar has made a sparkling century. But in some weak moment I had committed myself.

There are certain things that I would like to make very clear at the very outset. Don't get carried away by my name - Javed Akhtar. I am not revealing a secret, I am saying something that I have said many times, in writing or on TV, in public. I am an atheist, I have no religious beliefs. And obviously I don't believe in spirituality of some kind. Some kind.

Another thing. I am not standing here to criticize, analyze, or attack this gentleman who is sitting here. We have a very pleasant, civilized relation. I have always found him to be an extremely courteous person.

One is talking about an idea, an attitude, a mindset. Not any individual. I must tell you that when Rajeev opened this session, for a moment I felt that I have come to the wrong place. Because, if we are discussing the philosophy of Krishna and Gautam and Kabir, Vivekanand, then I have nothing to say. I can sit down right now. I am not here to discuss a glorious past of which I suppose every Indian is proud, and rightly so. I am here to discuss a dubious present.

India Today has invited me and I have come here to talk of spirituality today. Let's not be confused by this word spirituality, you can find two people with the same name and they can be totally different people. Ram Charit Manas was written by Tulsidas. And the television film has been made by Ramanand Sagar. Ramayan is common but I don't think it would be very wise to club Tulsidas with Ramanand Sagar. I remember, when he had written Ramcharit Manas, he had faced a kind of a social boycott. How could he write a holy book in such a language like Avadhi? Sometimes I wonder fundamentalists of all hues and all colors, religions and communities. how similar they are. In 1798, a gentleman called Shah Abdul Qadir, in this very city, for the first time translated Quran in Urdu, and all the ulemas of that time gave fatwa against him that how could he translate this holy book in such a heathen language. When Tulsi wrote Ramcharit Manas and he was boycotted, I remember a chowpai that he had written.

"Dhut kaho abdhut kaho rajput kaho ki julawa kohu

Kohu ki beti se beta na biahab, kohu ki jaat bigaar na chahu

Mang ke khaibo, mehjid ma raihbo, lebe ka ek na debe ka dohu"

Ramanand Sagar, when he made his television serial, he made millions. I am not undermining him, but obviously he is much lower in the rung. I will give you another example. Perhaps it would be more direct and more appropriate. Gautam came out of a palace and went into wilderness to find the truth. But nowadays we see, the modern age gurus, come out of the wilderness and wind up in the palaces. They are moving in the opposite direction. We can't talk of them in the same breath. So let us not hide behind names which are dear and respectable for every Indian.

When I was invited to give this talk, I felt that yes, I am an atheist, try to be a rationalist in any given situation, Maybe that's why I have been called. But suddenly I have realized that there is another quality that I share with Modern Age gurus. I work in films. We have lot in common. Both of us, sell dreams, both of us create illusions, both of us create icons, but with a difference. After three hours we put a placard - the end. Go back to reality. They don't.

So ladies and gentlemen, let me make it very clear that I have come to talk of this spirituality that has a supermarket in the world. Arms, drugs and spirituality - these are the three big businesses in the world. But in arms and drugs you really have to do something, give something. That's the difference. Here you don't have to give anything.

In this supermarket you get instant Nirvana, Moksha by mail, a crash course in self realization, cosmic consciousness in four easy lessons. This supermarket has its chain all over the world, where the restless elite buy spiritual fast food. I am talking about this spirituality.

Plato in his dialogues has said many a wise thing, and one of them is - before starting any discussion decide on the meanings of words. Let us try to decide on the meaning of this word spirituality. Does it mean love for mankind that transcends all religion, caste, creed, race? Is that so? Then I have no problem. Except that I call it humanity. Does it mean love of plants, trees, mountains, oceans, rivers, animals? The non-human world? If that is so, again I have no problem at all. Except that I call it environmental consciousness. Does spirituality mean heartfelt regard for social institutions like marriage, parenthood, fine arts, judiciary, freedom of expression. I have no problem again sir, how can I disagree here? I call it civil responsibility. Does spirituality mean going into your own world trying to understand the meaning of your own life? Who can object on that? I call it self-introspection, self assessment. Does spirituality mean Yoga? Thanks to Patanjali, who has given us the details of Yoga, Yam, Yatam, aasan, pranayam. We may do it under any name, but if we are doing pranayam, wonderful. I call it health-care. Physical fitness.

Now is it a matter of only semantics. If all this is spirituality, then what is the discussion. All these words that I have used are extremely respectable and totally acceptable words. There is nothing abstract or intangible about them. So why stick to this word spirituality? What is there in spirituality that has not been covered by all these words? Is there something? If that is so then what is that?

Somebody in return can ask me what is my problem with this word. I am asking to change it, leave it, drop it, make it obsolete but why so? I will tell you what is my reservation. If spirituality means all this then there is no discussion. But there is something else which makes me uneasy. In a dictionary, the meaning of spirituality is rooted in a word called "spirit". When mankind didn't know whether this earth is round or flat, he had decided that human beings are actually the combination of two things. Body and spirit. Body is temporary, it dies. But the spirit is, shall I say, non-biodegradable. In your body you have a liver and heart and intestines and the brain, but since the brain is a part of the body, and mind lies within the brain, it is inferior because ultimately the brain too shall die with the body, but don't worry, you are not going to die, because you are your spirit, and the spirit has the supreme consciousness that will remain, and whatever problem you have is because you listen to your mind. Stop listening to your mind. Listen to your spirit - the supreme consciousness that knows the cosmic truth. All right. It's not surprising that in Pune there is an ashram and I used to go there. I loved the oratory. On the gate of the lecture hall there was a placard. Leave your shoes and minds here. There are other gurus who don't mind if you carry your shoes. But minds?. sorry.

Now, if you leave your mind what do you do? You need the Guru to find the next station of consciousness. That hides somewhere in the spirit. He has reached the supreme consciousness, he knows the supreme truth. But can he tell you. No sir, he cannot tell you. So can you find out on your own? No sir, you need the guru for that. You need him but he cannot guarantee that you will know the ultimate truth. and what is that ultimate truth? What is the cosmic truth? Relating to cosmos? I have really not been able to understand that. The moment we step out of the solar system the first star is Alpha Centuari. It is just four light years away. How do I relate to that!! What do I do!! So the emperor is wearing robes that only the wise can see. And the emperor is becoming bigger and bigger. And there are more and more wise people who are appreciating the robe.

I used to think that actually spirituality is the second line of defence for the religious people. When they get embarrassed about traditional religion, when it starts looking too down-market, they hide behind this smokescreen of cosmos and super consciousness. But that is not the complete truth. Because the clientele of traditional religion and spirituality is different. You take the map of the world, you start marking places which are extremely religious, within India or outside India, Asia, Latin America, Europe. wherever. You will find that wherever there is lot of religion there is lack of human rights. There is repression. Anywhere. Our Marxist friends used to say that religion is the opium of poor masses, the sigh of the oppressed. I don't want to get into that discussion. But spirituality nowadays is definitely the tranquilizer of the rich.

You see that the clientele is well heeled, it is the affluent class. Alright, so the guru gets power, high self esteem, status, wealth.(which is not that important), power. and lot of wealth too. What does the disciple get? When I looked at them carefully I realized that there are categories and categories of these disciples. It's not a monolith. There are different kinds of followers. Different kinds of disciples. One, who is rich, successful, doing extremely well in his life, making money, gaining property. Now, since he has everything he wants absolution too. So guru tells him - whatever you are doing, is "niskaam karma" - you are playing a role, this is all "Maya", the money that you are making everyday and the property that you are acquiring, you are not emotionally involved with it. You are just playing a role. You come to me because you are in search of eternal truth. Maybe your hands are dirty, but your spirit and soul are pure. And this man, he starts feeling wonderful about himself. For seven days he is exploiting the world, and at the end of the seven days when he goes and sits at the feet of the guru, he feels - I am a sensitive person.

There is another category. That too comes from the affluent class. But he is not the winner like the first one. You know winning or losing that is also relative. A rickshaw-wallah if he is gambling on the pavement and wins hundred rupees will feel victorious, and if a corporate man makes only 300 million dollars, while his brother is a billionaire, he will feel like a failure. Now, what does this rich failure do? He needs a guru to tell him - who says that you have failed? You have other worlds, you have another vision, you have other sensibility that your brother doesn't have. He thinks that he is successful. wrong. The world is very cruel, you know. The world tells you honestly, no sir, you have got three out of ten. The other person has seven out of ten. Fair. They will treat you that way and they will meet you that way. There he gets compassion. There he plays another game.

Another category. And I will talk about this category not with contempt or with any sense of superiority, not any bitterness, but all the compassion available one that is a very big client of this modern day guru and today's spirituality, is the unhappy rich wife.

Here is a person who put all her individuality, aspirations and dreams, and her being at the altar of marriage and in return she got an indifferent husband. Who at the most gave her a couple of children. Who is rather busy with his work, or busy with other women. This woman needs a shoulder. She knows that she is an existential failure. There is nothing to look forward to. She has a vacuous, empty, comfortable yet purposeless life. It's sad, but it is true.

Then there are other people. Who are suddenly traumatized. They lose a child. The wife dies. The husband dies. Or they lose the property, they lose their business. Something happens that shocks them and they ask - why me? So who do they ask? They go to the Guru. And the guru tells him that this is Karma. But there is another world if you follow me. Where there is no pain. Where there is no death. Where there is immortality. Where there is only bliss. He tells all these unhappy souls - follow me and I will take you to the heaven, to the paradise, where there is no pain. I am sorry sir, it is disappointing but true that there is no such paradise. Life will always have a certain quota of pain, of hurts, a possibility of defeats. But they do get some satisfaction.

Somebody may ask me if they are feeling better, if they are getting peace then what is your problem. It reminds me of a story that I have read. It's an old Indian story told by a sage, that a hungry dog finds a dry bone and tries to eat it and in the process bites its own tongue. And the tongue is bleeding and the dog feels that he is getting nourishment from the bone.

I feel sad. I don't want them, these adults, to behave like this because I respect them. Drugs and alcohol are also supposed to give mental peace and serenity, but is that kind of piece or serenity desirable or advisable? The answer is no. Any mental peace that is not anchored in rational thoughts is nothing but self-deception. Any serenity that takes you away from truth is just an illusion - a mirage. I know that there is a kind of a security in this which is like the security of a tri-cycle. If you are riding a tri-cycle you can't fall. But adults do not ride tricycles. They ride bi-cycles. They can even fall. It is a part of life.

There is one more kind. Like everybody who is the member of the golf club is not fond of golf. In the same way everybody who is seen in an ashram is not a spiritual person. A film producer who is an ardent follower of a guru, whose ashram is about two hours from Delhi once told me that you must go to my Guru. You will see the who's who of Delhi there. Let me tell you my Guruji is another Chandraswami in the making. Now this is a contact point for networking.

I have great respect for people who are spiritual, or religious, and in spite of this they are good people. And I have a reason. I believe that like every emotion or feeling, you have a limitation.

I am feeling slightly pressurized about time, can I get another five six minutes please. may I sir. Rajiv Mehrotra "yes you can"

You can see up to a point. And you can't see further. You can hear up to a point, but beyond that you won't be able to register sounds. You can mourn up to a point and then you will get over your mourning. You will feel happy up-to a point and then you will be through with your happiness. Same way, I am sure that you have a certain capacity for nobility also. You can be as noble and no more. Now suppose if we count this capacity for nobility in the average man as ten units, now anybody who goes to pray in a mosque five times is consuming his five units, there anybody who goes to the temple or sits in the feet of the Guru, he is consuming his quota of nobility there. And in a totally non-productive manner. I don't go to pray. I don't pray. If I don't go to any guru, or mosque or temple or church, what do I do with my quota of nobility. I will have to help somebody, feed somebody, give shelter to somebody. People who use their quota in worshiping, praying, adoring religious figures and spiritual figures, in spite of that, if they are left with some nobility, hats off to them.

You may ask me, that if I have this kind of ideas about religious people, why should I show such reverence for Krishna and Kabir and Gautam? You can ask me. I'll tell you why I respect them. These were the great contributors in the human civilization. They were born in different points of time in history, in different situations. But one thing is common in them. They stood up against injustice. They fought for the downtrodden. Whether it was Ravana, or Kansa or the pharaoh or the high priests or the British Samrajya in front of Gandhi - or the communal empire of Firoze Tughlaq in the times of Kabir, they stood against that.

And what surprises me, and confirms my worst feelings, that today, the enlightened people who know the cosmic truth, none of them stand up against the powers that be. None of them raises his voice against the ruling classes and the privileged classes. Charity, yes, when it is approved and cleared by the establishment and the powers that be. But I want to know which was that guru which took the dalits to those temples which are still closed to them. I want to know which was that guru who stood for the rights of the Adivasis against the thekedaars and contractors. I want to know which was that guru who spoke about the victims of Gujarat and went to their relief camps. They are human beings.

Sir. It is not enough to teach the rich how to breathe. It is the rich mans recreation. It is the hypocrites' pretension. It is a mischievous deception. And you know that in the oxford dictionary, mischievous deception is a term that is used for a word, and that word is. HOAX. Thank you.

74 comments:

  1. Please also see the response of Sri.Sri.Sri.Ravishankar. http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you ask a butcher to talk about fish, he would talk about the way cutting it. A chef would talk about which fish tastes best and the gourmets that one can prepare out of it. A marine biologist will talk in length about the species, the varieties, their food habits, interesting facts etc etc. So, it depends who you ask to talk about something and their exposure on that topic. One should seek Eisntein's take on Physics and Science, his take on anthropology or Indian history need not be entirely authentic however interesting they may be. So people have exposure to certain subjects in which they have expertise in. They can only provide perspectives from that angle.

    Taking alternative perspectives is important to one's learning and development :) In that sense this is a beautiful piece of speech, I loved it because it makes us think! Thanks for sharing it.

    Even though this is interesting I would still prefer to hear about "Spirituality" from the experts who have expounded the idea - Sri Shankara, or Madhwa, or Ramanuja, or Vivekananda, Prabhupada, Chinmayananda, Ramakrishna etc etc :)

    After I wrote it I saw a comment on Sri Sri's take on the talk.

    My few cents though!

    ReplyDelete
  3. @@Kaatu: Taking alternative perspectives is important to one's learning and development :) In that sense this is a beautiful piece of speech, I loved it because it makes us think! Thanks for sharing it.

    We should ask JA to talk on theory of relativity. We get a chance to think on Physiscs ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spirituality has two meanings
    1. Concerned with spirit (vital force or animating force within living beings)
    2. Property of the Church

    ReplyDelete
  5. JA's conclusion that spirituality is a hoax is wrong.

    He describes different kinds of disciples
    a)Rich - who has everything, so wants absolution too
    b)From an affluent class like (a) but there is an element called relative failure
    c)Un-happy rich wife
    d) Somebody who is traumatized etc.

    Are the above the only set of disciples?
    If YES, Are the above disciples qualified for learning spirituality?

    If he is concluding that spirituality is hoax by referring to his example "There is one more kind. Like everybody who is the member of the golf club is not fond of golf. In the same way everybody who is seen in an ashram is not a spiritual person. A film producer who is an ardent follower of a guru, whose ashram is about two hours from Delhi once told me that you must go to my Guru. You will see the who's who of Delhi there. Let me tell you my Guruji is another Chandraswami in the making. Now this is a contact point for networking." then he has done a grave mistake by generalizing it. He should rather have made his hoax statement specific to that particular guru

    ReplyDelete
  6. @JA: I would like to make very clear at the very outset. I am an atheist, I have no religious beliefs. And obviously I don't believe in spirituality of some kind. Some kind.

    He starts with disbelief in God, Religion and Spirituality. It is not his conclusion! Pl. note.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Factist: Spirituality has two meanings
    1. Concerned with spirit (vital force or animating force within living beings)
    2. Property of the Church

    Yes, it looks like JA is taking 2nd meaning. He is talking more about property and money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @JA - Analyst:
    If he says Spirituality is a HOAX, then it should be his conclusion.

    Why do you say it is not his conclusion?
    What else would you call his statement Spirituality is a HOAX as?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am talking about his initial position at the beginning of the talk. As an atheist, as irreligious and as aspiritual person.

    I thought it is an important observation before we proceed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. JA is confused. He is not condemning spirituality but is condemning spirituality based on dogma or ritualism

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with spirit! JA takes a conditional take on the term. I thought he clarifies that in advance!

    Even for me, if spirituality is going to some "fake gurus" then I would consider that tag of spirituality as hoax. It is not that the very idea of spirituality is hoax but in the context of a hoax "guru" then it is as hoax as the "guru" himself. But then there are enlightened individuals in the field who can get us to appreciate the true meaning of spirituality, which may not be hoax.

    Given that there are more hoax "swamijis" or "gurus" now than genuine ones, the tag of "spirituality" will also be as much tainted as these people are.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Kaatu, Who is fake Guru? or Hoax Guru?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @@utaak : "We should ask JA to talk on theory of relativity. We get a chance to think on Physiscs ;)"

    Yeah, spirituality and such topics are abstract topics, they are word meanings, anyone can have an opinion about. Theory of relativity and such are material topics that needs to study, it is not perception based :) But even then if JA can talk about it then he should have thought about it and may provide a new perspective which may or may not be useful depending on how sensible that content is :) ;)

    ReplyDelete
  14. @JA-Analyst: This is the question that leaves the idea of "spirituality" hanging in the air, and thus subject to varying perceptions. For instance, for some Chandraswami was a fake "Guru", for some Nityananda may be, for others someone else may be! This is why the idea become very subjective and thus JA can have a jab at it :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. @JA-Analyst: Tamil Nadu in particular filled with many "Ammas", North India is filled with so called "baabas", Karnataka is slightly better but there are many! It is hard to name them given that it is a faith based idea and can hurt certain people's sentiments. So there so called "gurus", or self-made-godmen as media likes to call them, as corrupt as the politicians are.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well! After reading the thoughtful speech I would like to tell you all a concept or the way we should look at it...
    Once a man called 4 people to look at his house and tell him how it looks. All the 4 men were placed in different directions. First person said "This house has a door and a window rest is wall", other person said "This house has 2 windows", other said "This house has only one window", Other person said "This house has only walls and nothing else". Now, man got confused he was not sure what to do.. hence he asked those people to shift places and then explain. Everyone started to understand different windows, doors, walls in the house and finally they gave him a good explanation of how the house looks. This entire story is all about parallel thinking most of us do not think beyond what we see and experience but some people are. Javed Akhtar whatever he said makes lot of sense.. pundit ravishankar also makes lot of sense instead of debating who is right or who is wrong. Its better to combine what they said and let your thought flow towards it..

    ReplyDelete
  17. Friends, We have question to answer here..

    "What is spirituality?"

    JA associates it with sprite and Ravi Shankar calls it as eternal love.

    I suggest you my friends, to take the discussion in the direction of answering this very question.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @JA: One is talking about an idea, an attitude, a mindset. Not any individual. ..if we are discussing the philosophy of Krishna and Gautam and Kabir, Vivekanand, then I have nothing to say. I am not here to discuss a glorious past of which I suppose every Indian is proud, and rightly so. I am here to discuss a dubious present.

    JA claims to be talking about an idea, an attitude, a mindset. Not individual. Krishna was part of Dwaparayuga. Gautam, Kabir and Vivekananda lived in different centuries of last 2000 years of Kaliyuga (300BC, 1000AD, 1900AD, i may not be precise). So, What is past and What is present? Where is the distinction? Is JA clubbing All living persons who are talking about spirituality in the category of "dubious present"?

    ReplyDelete
  19. #JA:I am an atheist, try to be a rationalist in any given situation,

    Krishna was God himself. Gautam was Godlike. Kabir, Vivekanand and Gandhi were staunch believers of God. All of them were rationalists. So, Rationalism and Theism need not be contradictory. Atheism and Rationalism are not equivalents!

    But JA is talking as if Rationalism as an implication of Atheism!

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Navigator: "What is Spirituality?"

    The Sanskrit equivalent of this term is "Adhyatma", the science pertaining to self, or science of discovery of the one's inner self, or the science of the original self or the science of origins. A scientific search that tries to address some very subtle nature of questions like: who am I? why do I exist? what is this world? what is the purpose of this life? what is the source of everything, where did everything come from? etc etc. Given the abstract nature of this idea, the search is very subjective, it involves a subjective experience unlike the objective / experimental modern science.

    "Spirituality" is a much narrower and not as clearly defined unlike as its umbrella term "Adhyatma". The inquiry into the self.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Could some one provide translation of the following?
    "Dhut kaho abdhut kaho rajput kaho ki julawa kohu
    Kohu ki beti se beta na biahab, kohu ki jaat bigaar na chahu
    Mang ke khaibo, mehjid ma raihbo, lebe ka ek na debe ka dohu"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Spirituality is a hoax
    Some say enquiry INTO the self
    Some say it is not clearly defined
    Some say it is subjective experience
    Some say it is a scientific search

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Navigator

    Ravishankar says
    "What does spirituality mean to you?

    Spirituality is a connection with god, with the universal power and the spirit deep within you."
    http://srisriravishankar.org/content/sri-sri-speaks-sex-spirituality-and-afterlife

    JA Says
    "humanity, environmental consciousness, civil responsibility, self-introspection, self assessment, health care" can together be called spirituality

    ReplyDelete
  24. JA is fabricating stories:
    Tulasidas was respected for creating Ramacharitamanas. Even today, we see people treating him as godlike. I really dont know from where JA came out with the story of "social boycot" for creating Ramacharitamanasa in Avadh. Similarly, Shah Abdul Qadir improvised the literal translation of Quran produced by his brother. He also simplified it to the language used by the common people. I have not come across this "Fatwa" story. I think JA is creating stories to suit his theory.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @brutaltruth, Why are calling it as a "thoughtful speech"? It is a lousy, incoherent, misconceived speech.

    Not worth discussing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @JA: have realized that there is another quality that I share with Modern Age gurus. I work in films. We have lot in common. Both of us, sell dreams, both of us create illusions, both of us create icons, but with a difference. After three hours we put a placard - the end. Go back to reality. They don't.

    When paraphrased, JA is just saying that "Modern age Gurus are pretending and creating illusion" JA is free to talk about himself - of selling dreams, creating illusion, creating icons. But he can not say the same thing on behalf of Modern Age Gurus. These statements can be made when the conclusion that "modern age Gurus are fakes" is already taken. JA, an atheist - irreligious, is claiming superiority (as honest, transparent) over Modern Age Gurus - who are theists and religious. These are just concluding statements without initiating any analysis:

    A Guru, even when he has not realized, need not be a fake. He/She may be honest about it. Still people could consider him/her worth following.

    ReplyDelete
  27. spirit said...
    JA is confused. He is not condemning spirituality but is condemning spirituality based on dogma or ritualism
    March 21, 2011 4:23 AM

    Kaatu said...
    I agree with spirit! JA takes a conditional take on the term. I thought he clarifies that in advance! in the context of a hoax "guru" then it is as hoax as the "guru" himself. Given that there are more hoax "swamijis" or "gurus" now than genuine ones, the tag of "spirituality" will also be as much tainted as these people are.
    March 21, 2011 5:05 AM


    Spirit is confused NOT JA. Kaatu is also confused because of agreement with Spirit!
    Why?

    1. When Spirituality is condemned, JA is taking an escape route by agreeing to Krishna-Gouthama etc. He is also creating another escape route by distinguishing between "glorious past" and "dubious present". JA knows that he can start with the good will of people who vouch on Krishna etc. and His design is to glorify those who are buried in the past and to undermine those are living at present.
    Spirit, unable to see this trick, is rattled and is taking a defensive position. He tries to save Spirituality by distinguinshing one with Dogma and one without Dogma/rituals.
    Kaatu recognises his conditional take - and allows JA to getaway with his unreasonable attack on spirituality

    2. Fake Gurus may be there. But how do we know that more Hoax swamijis are there than the real Gurus? Do we distinguish between Real Science students and fake science students? Real environmentalists / Humanists /Civic conscious / self conscious / Historians / Artists / Scientists and their HOAX counterparts? Why? Because there are no sworn enemies of science and History in this world!

    ReplyDelete
  28. First of all I do not understand, whether JA is such a personality who has basic knowledge of debating on Spirituality or not.
    He has woven his speech like dialogues of Amitabh Bachchan.

    The best way to prove that his speech is on wrong lines is to prove the script is more of dramatized.
    He in his speech talks about:
    1. Ramayan, Ramanand sagar, Tulsidas and his boycott

    2. Ramanand Sagar making millions(Huh: As though he has not made by writing Lagaan and Lyrics on "Radha Kaise Na Jale"- song on Divine Radha)

    3. Spirituality as a supermarket. I do not know from where he drew this conclusion. May be Akaashavaani for JA ;)
    Spirituality can never be misused. If somebody has, then they have misused something else, not Spirituality.

    4. He talks about Civil responsibility, self introspection, humanity, self assessment, Physical fitness.

    5. Talks about alpha Centauri(The modern day Astronomer Mr. JA)

    I think somebody has quoted very nicely: "Never awake child, others dog, serpent, fool. Leave them asleep."
    I think JA was one of them, which India today woke up.
    Now we have to decide what was JA:
    1. Fool
    2. Others dog
    3. child
    4. Serpent.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Kaatu
    Is it not true that there are fake gurus?
    Is it not true that because of those gurus, the whole system is spoilt?
    Is it not true that such fake gurus are being taken care of by dumb disciples?
    Is it not our duty to provide a distinction between fake gurus and real gurus?[if at all we can do that distinction]
    Should we escape from this even if JA did not play the trick!

    ReplyDelete
  30. sorry the last comment was for utaak and not for kaatu. The palindromes confused me not JA!

    ReplyDelete
  31. JA says:

    "humanity, environmental consciousness, civil responsibility, self-introspection, self assessment, health care" can together be called spirituality

    Ravi Shankar says:
    Spirituality is a connection with god, with the universal power and the spirit deep within you."

    kaatu says:
    A scientific search that tries to address some very subtle nature of questions like: who am I? why do I exist? what is this world? what is the purpose of this life? what is the source of everything, where did everything come from? etc etc.

    Aren't all these same?

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Spirit:
    All the above statements are true.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @spirit:
    1. There are fake Gurus.
    2. Fake Gurus spoil the system
    3. This is debatable.
    A disciple is entitled to choose his/her Guru. A particular (to simplify things - say an advanced learner) learner needs a (simplifying things again, an elevated teacher) specific teacher. A novice could go to any teacher practically speaking. He will be benefitted. Now, if a disciple calls a teacher with whom he/she can not benefit as fake, the problem starts. The Guru may not be fake! The student could be so dumb that he may not appreciate the greatness of the teacher. The teacher may not be upto the level of the student!!
    4. It is important to have an assessment of Gurus (not just as fake or real, because all real Gurus may not be useful for everyone). But this assessment has to be there w.r.t to science teachers, historians etc
    5. This responsibility of assessment is not special to the field of spirituality. That is why it is important to see the game played by JA.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @utaak
    what i meant by the question
    Is it not true that such fake gurus are being taken care of by dumb disciples?

    is

    When we accept that there are fake gurus, the disciples who are following such gurus(knowing/without knowing that the guru is fake) are dumb!

    and for your point (4) students can judge whether a teacher science/historians etc are good or bad. So should the disciples choose whether the guru is fake or not

    5) Agreed, that is why JA is a hoax and not spirituality

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Navigator
    Ravishankar & Kaatu's definition is a hoax!

    JA's defintions is correct and real

    ReplyDelete
  36. but Mr JA.. Ravishankar, Kaatu's and Mr. Akthar definition are all sounding similar to me... If there is some difference please put some light on it

    ReplyDelete
  37. JA hints that there are fake gurus

    1) How do you identify a fake guru?

    2) A guru may be fake for a person but may be ideal for another

    3)Is it possible for a society to term a guru as a fake? If YES then such Gurus must be discarded

    @Navigator
    JA's defnition of spirituality is a subset of Ravishankar's definition.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ravi Shankar says:
    "Spirituality is a connection with god, with the universal power and the spirit deep within you."

    spirit deep within you! can you please tell where exactly or how deep? Statements such as these have kept dumb disciples in dark! they simply believe what the guru tells and guru is enjoying a large fan following. He is making lots of money. In fact he is pushing the disciples into deep shit!

    kaatu says:
    A scientific search that tries to address some very subtle nature of questions like: who am I? why do I exist? what is this world? what is the purpose of this life? what is the source of everything, where did everything come from? etc etc.

    what will you get by knowing all this? Spirituality? or Spirit? or both?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Real-JA does not consider the possibility of a genuine Guru. He does not consider a Guru who is not fake. For him, Guru is nothing but fake.


    Discussion-JA says "statements like 'spirit deep with in you' is pushing the disciples into deep shit"

    Can you please tell which Shit or how deep?

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Navigator: "Aren't all these same?"

    I dont think they are all the same. I felt that JA's definition is superficial, connected to this body and mind (gross level as it is called), and "adhyatma" is supposedly one step futher, as Ravishankars says "deep within" (subtle level as it is called). Self-introspection may appear to be "deep within", but in JA's lecture it is clear it is more to do with our gross existence; like introspection about one's bodily or mental behaviors; it can be about "why am I like this" or "why am I behaving this way" or "what are my strengths and weaknesses?" etc rather than "who am I?" or "whats my relation with creation" etc. I dont know if you can see that difference. Similarly JA's "humanity, environmental consciousness, civil responsibility, health care" are all related to this external body. Ashyatma is too look beyond this body and mind. It is a different matter whether this is practical or not but the vocabularies are different.

    I think Ravi Shankar and my questions are pretty close, because both are from the context of Adhyatma.

    ReplyDelete
  41. JA said... what will you get by knowing all this? Spirituality? or Spirit? or both?

    1) It does not matter what I get by knowing all this, in the context of this debate.

    2) It is like people asking "what will you get by learning history" or "what will you get by studying Philosophy" or "what will you get by watching the cricket match"! etc! Some find these activities waste of time, while some find satisfaction, some find peace, some find happiness, some find their passion etc.

    3) One needs to experience it to know or realize this very question. May be we can say, just as Ashtanga Yoga tunes our mind with our body (one should have practiced Yoga to realize this experience), "Adhyatmika chintana" is a Yoga which tunes our mind with our own self (agan, one needs to practice this to realize its experience).

    So, what's the use of anything needs to be an understood by the experience of that action. What is of use to you may not be of use to me, and visa-versa, it is a subjective experience :)

    ReplyDelete
  42. One of my posts did not appear I suppose. Anyway.

    This debate has two points: 1) The Vocabulary (whether JA's take on Spirituality is in line with the idea of Adhyatma that he is actually attacking), and 2) The Practise or the Practitioners (whether the idea itself is hoax or there are some hoax practitioners)

    The first point has been discussed, the vocabulary: what Adhyamta actually could mean, whether JA's perspective is in context of that.

    Next point of the debate is similar to the question: Is the Atomic (Nuclear) Science Evil or is the way it is used? Just as Atomic (Nuclear) Science cannot be evil, "Spirituality" in itself cannot be. Just as their are "Misuser" of Atomic Science, there are "Misusers" of Spiritual Science. Just as we cannot Dismiss or consider Atomic Science as Evil by looking at its evil doers, we cannot call Spirituality as hoax by quoting some actions of hoax individuals or practitioners.

    Moreover, there are those who do not and cannot appreciate the idea but that does not make the idea hoax. Just like some people cannot understand philosophy (or Quantum Physics) does not mean that philosophy (or QUantum Physics) is hoax. They may want to call it hoax but that does not make it hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks kaatu and arya for giving clarity on the difference. While in the process of understanding the difference I learnt that Mr. Akthar and Ravi Shankar are talking about two things

    Mr. Akthar's version of spirituality talks more about responsibilities, external body maintenance, relation with the society and nature.

    Ravi Shankar's version of spirituality is called "adhyatma" which includes all those Mr. Akthar says, plus it includes inquire into onces self.

    Did I put it in a right way?

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Navigator:
    Are we sure Ravi shankar and Javed Aktar is talking about two different things?
    If Akthar is telling:
    1. Civil responsibiity: Can we tell it is whose civil responsibility?

    2. External body maintenance: whose body maintenance?

    3. Relation with society: Whose relation with society and nature?

    In my opinion Akthars' definition of spirituality is incomplete, because he only talks about the other end (as explained in point 1 2 3), but he never tells from where it should all start to achieve the above said points.

    ReplyDelete
  45. JA repeats that he is talking about "this spirituality".
    that has a supermarket in the world where restless elite buy spiritual fast food. Where instant nirvana, moksha by mail, crash course of self realization, cosmic consciousness in four easy lessons is offered.

    Compares spiritual market to the market of Drugs and Arms! Says spiritual market is thriving without giving anything in return (basically inferior even when compared to the arms/drugs business). JA delivers loaded statements all hinting fakeness of the spiritual world.

    Spirituality, when considered as including commercial activities related to Asana, Pranayama and Ayurveda, is a big business. It is part of Health and Well being business which is a mega business. A simple obvious fact stated with a negative connotation.

    Javed Akhtar is essentially grouping together non spiritual things which are in close proximity with the spiritual jargon and calling it as spirituality (this spirituality). An intelligent but simultaneously fallacious attack on spirituality.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Attack on spirituality is what many in this forum announce that Mr. Akthar is upto.

    Why would Mr. Akthar attack on spirituality?

    ReplyDelete
  47. A guru tells a disciple that you should not identify yourself with your body. You should identify yourself with the spirit within you!

    The disciple agrees and blindly follows what guru says, because he is being told by the guru that if he does what the guru tells then he will be taken to paradise where there is no pain, pleasure etc..

    For the matter we don't know if there is a paradise. Again simply follow the guru. In the process we do not know what is the qualification of the guru. If he himself has not seen paradise how on earth can he explain the path to paradise to his disciples.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr JA

    please note the below points
    1) Gurus of spirituality may be qualified or not qualified to teach disciples but still they are being considered Gurus

    2) Take any other field.. science, maths, art etc there are Teachers who are good/not good teachers. But still they are considered teachers

    3) Why is so much of concern only for spirituality and not for other fields

    ReplyDelete
  49. Spirituality considers Spirit along with Physical body in dealing with human beings. Body dies but Spirit does not. Materialists and Communists become uneasy at this Spirit. Because it is contradictory to materialism. They further understand that Religion is external manifestation with Spirituality as the core. Marxists say that religion is the opium of poor masses, the sigh of the oppressed. Religious people, cornered by Communists/atheists, are talking the language of Spirituality. Spirituality nowadays is becoming popular worldwide.

    Javed Akhtar has communist friends with whom he has agreement on these things. So he says Spirituality is the second line of defence for the religious people. He says that whereever there is a lot of religion there is lack of human rights. There is repression. Damns Spirituality as the tranquilizer of the rich, extending the Marxist theory. Those who advocate Body+Spirit kind of theory, are labelled as fakes. Disciples are labelled as unethical rich, unhappy rich wives, traumatised and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Javed Akhtar: Does spirituality mean Yoga? Thanks to Patanjali, who has given us the details of Yoga, Yam, Yatam, aasan, pranayam. We may do it under any name, but if we are doing pranayam, wonderful. I call it health-care. Physical fitness.

    The above statement shows that JA is an idiot.
    Patanjali's Astanga Yoga has Yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyna and samadhi. Asana is third step and the Pranayama the fourth. There are four more additional steps. What is the end? It is realization. Yoga is nothing but a manual of Spirituality and Religion. Western (and) materialistic world has opened its eye only to Pranayama and Asana. They can only see physical fitness aspect in them. It is their limitation.

    Spiritualitty is a blind spot for Javed Akthar and to all materialists. What is a blind spot? A subject about which you are ignorant and you dont know that you dont know!

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Utaak - I think you have hit the point that we are all wandering around; you have probably come to the point with one clear example that we have been trying to address. Good, sensible writing except for the "JA is an idiot" comment :)

    JA may not have intended to be comprehensive with the list. But I completely agree with your take on Yoga, from the bodily conception perspective of the rest. As we have been trying to emphasize here, most of JA's take are from a "gross" or "bodily" aspect as is his take on Yoga also, limiting to "materialistic" / "physical" level.

    I really liked your use of "Blind Spot". He is not blind but he has a blind spot :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. I make amends!

    In the above statement JA is talking like an idiot.

    Is it okay?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Patanjali's Astanga Yoga has Yama, niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyna and samadhi. Asana is third step and the Pranayama the fourth. There are four more additional steps. What is the end? It is realization.

    What is realization? Again a blind following that doing yoga is not just about maintaining your health but realization!

    They can only see physical fitness aspect in them. It is their limitation. Yes we can only see that. Show me a common man who can see anything other than that!

    Yoga is nothing but a manual of Spirituality and Religion. JA has perfectly termed it as HOAX

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sri Ravishankar says
    An intelligent man would look into all the avenues before he makes a comment or accusation. It is necessary to stand up for justice and expose the misdeeds of the world. Instead the so-called activists only engage in accusations. Blaming the entire modern-day spiritual guru and sadhu community is as foolish as branding the entire Muslim community as terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @JA, you said

    "What is realization? Again a blind following that doing yoga is not just about maintaining your health but realization!

    They can only see physical fitness aspect in them. It is their limitation. Yes we can only see that. Show me a common man who can see anything other than that!
    "

    Well, to counter your logic, Let me take this small example

    Suppose that I eat a mango and find it very tasty. Now, I want to share it with you as well. So, I "advice" you to go for a mango. If you ask me prior to eating "Prove that the mango you ate was tasty?" How can I prove?

    Only when you "blindly" follow me with a basic "trust" and go ahead and eat the mango your taste buds will give you sufficient proof. Similarly, If you ask a GURU.
    "Prove to me", without even trying to practice or implement with a basic trust. It will be just like asking proof for the taste of the mango without eating it.

    Only difference in this example of mango and with spirituality is - Mango can be tasted by your senses but Spirituality is beyond senses

    Akthar and you seem to be failing to understand this basic idea

    ReplyDelete
  56. Patanjali prescribes Asana and Pranayama to reach Samadhi. If someone is finding intermediates as useful, the end result must be credible / useful / more useful.

    There is a possibility that intermediates are true but not the end stage. But, given the image of Patanjali and the usefulness of Asana/Pranayama, I have more reasons to believe in Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana and Samadhi.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If the Supremet Truth is beyond mind, If Guru is helpful in realising the Truth, if Guru may not be able to assure the realization, what is the conclusion? How the emperor story is relevant here? Where is the irrationality? Is this an analysis? Or is it an intelligent way of driving readers to perceive Religion and Spirituality as irrational without explicitly stating it?

    ReplyDelete
  58. What is the crux of this discussion? To see this, we need to focus on the basis on which Javed Akthar is making these dramatic comments. (Pl. see 4th paragraph from the end of the speech)

    Start with a (unsubstantiated) belief - Every emotion and feeling has a limitation and similarly nobility also has limitation. (What does it mean?) It means, if you do k noble acts, you can do (a fixed number - k) more noble acts. (Remember this is a belief). Now, if you do Namaz five times a day, k will become 5. (Another belief? who told you that Namaz is a noble act? If it is a noble act, why/How it is unproductive?). Starting with the same belief of limitation, why can not we proceed in the following way?
     
    If we do ritualistic tasks, like offering namaz 5 times a day, we might be avoiding negative thoughts five times in a day. Reducing negative thoughts could increase our ability to help, feed and shelter!
     
    So, where is the problem. The problem is in the decided mindset to attack religion as a mandate given by a theory and in the ingenuity of extending it to Spirituality which is the core of the religion.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Meanwhile I would like to initiate another thread analysing the Sri Sri blog which was written in response to the Javed Akthar speech.

    [It is funny that in a country like India spirituality is talked about as a hoax. How can something which is so obvious, which is part of millions of people, be taken as a hoax? Spirituality is not a halo of the few, it is the breath of every human being. Have people forgotten that freedom was achieved through spirituality as the prime means by Mahatma Gandhi?]
    Pasted from

    Yes, that which is so obvious, if called as hoax, appears to be funny. If that is the case, it is better to reiterate that which is obvious. But Sri Sri here is just saying that it is part of millions, breath of every human being. The claim that freedom was achieved by Gandhi through spiritual means is misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I agree that Gandhi reference is misleading. Gandhi was a politician in the spiritual garb. Freedom was not achieved by Gandhi alone

    ReplyDelete
  61. I agree about Sri Sri's weak argument, in some places, of Sri Sri's write up. He appeals from an emotional viewpoint instead of a logical one. Similar to this one, Sri Sri came extremely under-prepared for a debate with Dr. Zakir Naik and got severely thrashed by the Muslim Scholar. Sri Sri had no idea about the premises and he lacked debating skills.

    Moreover, Sri Sri always seems to refute the author/speaker in the absence of the author/speaker. He did this with Zakir Naik and now with Javed.

    In any case, Sri Sri is not in question now and we can have a separate blog if needed for that. But Javed's argument on Spirituality is certainly weak.

    ReplyDelete
  62. With such a weak basis, How Javed Akthar is attacking Spirituality?

    1. He declares Religion and Spirituality as irrational
    2. Proclaims that any mental peace not anchored in rational thoughts is self deception
    3. Based on 1 and 2, Says the solace from spirituality/religion as deception
    4. Relates degree of relgiousness to the degree of lack of human rights
    5. Links religion to suppression
    6. Calls affluent as insensitive
    7. Does not agree that Charity from Rich / Government / religious mindset are good deeds.
    8. Labels those who follows spiritual personalities as Unhappy rich wife, traumatised, not so successful, insensitive rich etc
    9. Damns Pranayama
    10. Associate it with Rich
    11. Identify it as pretention
    12. Label it as mischievous deception
    13. Cites Oxford dictionary and conclude Spirituality as Hoax!

    ReplyDelete
  63. [If something does not end then it is not created! Perhaps he didn’t even realise the profound truth of what he was saying.Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]


    Good point by Ravishankar
    - That which does not end is not created!

    ReplyDelete
  64. [..his lyrics express the genuine feelings of thousands of youth when they come and sing his marvelous songs before me, with that spark of love in their eyes. Real-life love never ends; it moves from life to lifetimes.
    http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com]

    Javed Akthar creates something which is not real. But there is reality in what he creates when looked it from a different perspective. Again a good point by Sri Sri Sri.

    ReplyDelete
  65. what is the intent of this blog? Is it to condemn Akthar? OR is it to uplift Sri Ravi Shankar? OR is it to do both?

    There does not seem to be a single person in this blog talking supportively and yet logically about Akhar. Does that mean that Mr. Akthar was wrong in his statements? OR does it mean people in the blog are all like minded? OR does it mean people have not understood Mr. Akthar in a proper sense?

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Navigator: Why should be there a support for a person in a debate. The debate is about an idea or a concept. We have debated two aspects here a) the vocabulary of Spirituality and b) practiotioners or practise. We have debated varyingly on the ideas of both JA and Sri Sri. As in any debate there are sides that people tend to take.

    In general, my conclusion for the debate is that JA has his point about "Modern" "Fake Gurus" who are hoax, but the idea of Spirituality itself cannot be termed as Hoax; yes, there are people who are hoax but the idea itself is not hoax. Further, we have also discussed why JA's vocabulary of Spirituality has limitations and thus his conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Let us be very clear. JA is not just talking about modern Gurus as fake, although he uses Modern in his speech. He is considering all those who are talking about non-physical bodies as fake. He is targeting Modern Gurus. Because they are talking about spirituality,spirit, Pranayama, meditation, life after the death etc

    ReplyDelete
  68. [It has become a fashion with journalists to blindly continue the colonial tradition of calling Hindu spiritual leaders a hoax. They called Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo godmen and hoaxes, and their contemporaries continue to do so. Would they say this to Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama? No! Only Indian spiritual leaders are singled out.]
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/

    Javed Akthar did not include Vivekananda. So, argument becomes weak. Javed Akthar has included only present day Gurus like Sri Sri - so this argument becomes less convincing. Mother Teresa and Dalai Lama - are they not Indian spiritual leaders. Debatable. It is better to distinguish them as Hindu and Non Hindu for clarity. Proximity of Dalai Lama with Hinduism again creates problem with this line of argument. See this post which gives a counter example where a Whiteman criticizing Mother Theresa. I think, Sri Sri Sri has to sharpen his argument skills.
    http://safetvalve.blogspot.com/2011/03/javed-akhtar-on-spirituality.html

    ReplyDelete
  69. [Mr Akhtar thundered again: “All modern-day spiritualists are hypocrites”. Many people froze as he dismissed the present-day gurus. Today there are millions of people who follow spirituality: are they all hypocrites? I appreciated that he could express his feelings boldly, without pretension. But the contempt that was exhibited for gurus was alarming. The hatred and frustration were obvious from his body language. It’s not just Mr Akhtar. Many journalists, communists, atheists and naxalites live in that state of mind, of being anti-religious, anti-rich, anti-famous, anti-business.
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]

    The claim that "today millions of people are following spirituality is debatable". Is Sri Sri Sri trying to get numbers by his side? The boldness, contempt, hatred and frustration of Mr. Akthar, journalists, atheists and Naxalites could be misunderstood by common man. As
    Boldness as conviction in truth
    Contempt and hatred towards cheats
    Frustration towards continued suffering of people
    All these people proclaim that they are anti rich and anti religious and they justify their stance. They are open even in their stance about anti business and anti famous selectively.

    So, Sri Sri Sri is reinforcing the propaganda machinery of the Left instead of puncturing it!

    ReplyDelete
  70. [Spirituality is intoxicating. Only those who step into it will know. Before criticising we need to do our homework. Has one visited ashrams, like the Ramakrishna Ashram, Ananda Mayi Ma Mutt, Brahma Kumaris’, Gayatri Parivar, Pandurang Shastri, Sri Aurobindo Ashram or Art of Living? Has one spent time with saints? Only then does one’s views carry weight, else they remain simple accusations only, a distorted perception, not reality.
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]

    A person who has visited Ashrams and spent time with Saints may consider Spirituality as hoax. Then will Ravishankar agree with him/her?
    The basic point is - when the stance of the person is wrong, it is wrong irrespective of his/her background or experience!

    ReplyDelete
  71. [A flash of Aurangzeb, who butchered thousands of gurus and would not listen to any reason or logic, came to mind. An intelligent man would look into all the avenues before he makes a comment or accusation. It is necessary to stand up for justice and expose the misdeeds of the world. Instead the so-called activists only engage in accusations. Blaming the entire modern-day spiritual guru and sadhu community is as foolish as branding the entire Muslim community as terrorists.
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]
    Comparison of Javed Akthar to the Aurangazeb is meaningful. Intolerance of Aurangazeb and continued accusations of activists refusing to consider the available explanations from other side are facets of the same problem.
    But, analogy of Ravishankar - exonerating Muslim community ridiculous. This is another version of Muslim appeasement in India.

    ReplyDelete
  72. [It is the medieval brahmanical mindset to always put down business and politics and the colonial mindset to denounce gurus. As a result we never expanded our political influence nor globalised our business until very recently.
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]
    Ravishankar is taking one more step in the wrong direction. He is resorting to Brahmin bashing - accusing them of anti politics/business without any basis. Colonial mindset of denouncing Gurus has its base in their attempt to undermine moral guidance of Brahmins to the Hindu society. Ravishankar has also internalised colonial mindset.

    ReplyDelete
  73. [Then came his next statement that Buddha went from the palace to the forest and today the gurus come from the forest to the palace. I said to myself, ‘Come on! Buddha went to the forest when he was unhappy and miserable, and he came right back when he became a guru’. Any high school student knows this. Besides, every palace had a rajguru. Last year hundreds of sadhus were evicted from the caves and hermitages of the Himalayan region, near Haridwar, by the forest department. People generally think sadhus should live in forests with torn clothes but the forest department wanted to send them to the city!
    Pasted from http://srisriandjavedakhtar.blogspot.com/]
    If Buddha went to forest in a miserable condition and came back when he became Guru, AND, if every palace had a Rajguru, What is the conclusion? Is it a justification for a Guru to stay at a Palace? Why Ravishankar is giving such examples/analogy to Javed Akthar's trivial criticism?

    ReplyDelete
  74. [The atheists have always fought with spiritual people. In those situations we should know how to act. It is pointless to argue with them. What do you say to a man who has never stepped into the realm of spirituality yet calls it a hoax? It has been an old tradition to glorify the dead, and call the living a hoax. Kabir had to put up with this as did Meera, Buddha, Jesus, Adi Shankara and many more... the wise do not mind the outburst of a few. Spirituality is not a matter of the head, it is a matter of the heart.

    I had two choices: to argue and turn the conclave into a conflict or to keep silence. I chose the latter.

    Pasted from ]

    Those who can not argue usually stop with the same statement - "It is pointless to argue with them". What is the realm of Spirituality? Wise do not mind the outburst of a few - Who is wise here? What is the outburst here? Javed Akthar speech? Matter of head - Matter of the heart; what does it mean?
    Ravishankar appears to be reply ing from a self designated elevated status. But it fails to convince even a God fearing person like me. Instead, he should be approaching concepts in a much simple (and humble) way. That approach will provide a fitting reply to the arrogance of Javed Akthar.

    ReplyDelete