The relevance of 7. The rainbow of different religions.

Sometimes we come across websites which rant against a particular religion or faith. We also tend to be drawn to some religions and not others. Of course, in many parts of the world religion is something thrust upon us at the time of birth by our parents who initiate us into the rituals of a particular religion right from birth. Some of us continue the path of our ancestors and stick to it. Others dare to give up these forced religious choices and adopt their own. Still others become atheists, ‘rejecting’ all religions.  Whatever our choice, this blog might be useful in our understanding using the VIBGYOR rainbow model.

Seven is an interesting number which helps us enhance our spiritual understanding. The week has 7 days. According to Yoga, there are 7 chakras in human body. In Hinduism, there are 7 ancient rishis (holy seers) popularly called ‘saptarishis’. In many religions, they think there are 7 astral worlds (lokas).  Hindu couples take 7 rounds around the fire to sanctify and complete their marriage ritual.  Recent books also state that there are 7 senses in the human body - besides sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, there is also vestibular sense (balance and movement) and proprioception  (perception of body organs in relation to each other).

Let me start with the most important one, which helps us understand religions – the rainbow or VIBGYOR, which is nothing but white light. When white light passes through any prism it gets separated into its seven constituent colours which are Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red.  If we talk scientifically each band of light is a different wavelength.

This is the most interesting understanding of religions too. Different religions and different energy bands vibrate at different wavelengths. I am summarising here,  in the form of a picture the different colours of the rainbow and different religious energy bands  all coming from white light (the one cosmic divine source). 

Some interesting notes on the various colour and religion bands.

•         Is it a coincidence that Krishna is often depicted as a god in Indigo colour?
•       When Shiva drank the poison from the churning of oceans, it turned his throat blue. This allegory is not a coincidence.
•          Green is the colour of fertility and also that of Islam. Is it a coincidence that growth of population (fertility) among Muslim communities are among the highest?
•         Is it a coincidence that, red is the colour of bindi (centre dot) worn by Hindu women? Married women also wear vermillion (sindoor) in India. Is it a coincidence that it is bright red (feminine spiritual energy colour)?         
•    Most of pictures of Christ and Christian saints often have a yellow halo around their heads. Is this a coincidence? Yellow is the colour of Christ energy. In Judaism too, Moses saw god in the form of a fire which did not burn up the bush. Gold and Yellow.

{Besides the above light bands, which are constituents of the white (divine) light these, of course, there are darker forces which could be used for getting energy. But these darker forces operate outside the realm of white light (divine sources). Satanism, worship of certain rakshasas etc. would come under this.  (More about this can be read in the blog ‘The nature of evil’ http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-nature-of-evil.html)}

Some of those who are spiritually accomplished like to access this white light directly. Others seek to immerse themselves in particular colours for their spiritual advancement. Some like to be Buddhists, others find spiritual progress through Christ while still others progress through Islamic energies etc.  (To each their own way, based on their personality, emotional make-up, karma, physical make-up and tendencies).

These same religious energies can be also looked at from a chakra perspective. According to many books on yoga etc. there are seven main chakras. Their link to religious energies can be summarised thus,  as seen in this picture. 

Different weekdays can also be assigned based on different religious energies.  The list is as follows. Buddhism and Buddhist energies do not strongly identify with one particular day, but many Buddhists visit their temples on Sundays.

Most people are attracted or inclined to some religious path due to their personality, emotions, nature etc. Some are drawn to it due to their karma or the need of the overself  to learn more about a particular path. Different energy bands help us differently because the charism of that energy band is different. If we seek the help from that energy band and meditate, we will receive help. Some tips are as follows:

•        If we are in a mental dilemma in a situation, feeling confused, not knowing what to do and need more rational discrimination to see clearly, then Krishna energy is very useful. 
•       If we are seeking healing from hatred and struggle to forgive some friend or relative who has hurt us, then Christ energy is very useful for healing.  We do not have to get baptised or ‘convert’ to Christianity to access that energy.
•        Similarly, if we are looking for fertility and rejuvenation, the energy of Islam is very useful. 
•       If we are looking to get spiritual advancement with no selfish motives, the Buddha energy helps us. 
•      When we seek to immerse ourselves in our family, share love, friendship and affection with friends/relatives and touch their hearts with empathy – the feminine energy band is the one we should seek.  Feminine energy is also drawn in a situation of righteous anger, when we are fighting those who are far more powerful than us.
•       Massive energy to destroy the old and re-build can be drawn from the Shiva energy band. Shiva energy band also helps us to bear and neutralise the toxic aspects of our situation without getting demoralised or hurt.

If we follow one energy band and if someone is telling us to hate another energy band, that is not coming from the divine, because white light is the same for all.  Hence this understanding of religious charisms and energies should free us from hate of other religious paths, if we suffer from it.

Those who know a bit of physics also know that when white light breaks into constituent lights, each light is a range of frequencies. Therefore it is a continuous spectrum of light. For example, between 600 to 640 nm (nanometer) wavelength would be saffron/orange light.  But within this broad spectrum of 600 to 640 nm, each unit will have its own subtle unique energy personality. For example the 610 nm. wavelength will be the energy of a particular deity. Within the broad spectrum wavelength brackets of Hinduism energy (orange), there would be so many different Hindu saints and rishis which operate within that wavelength bracket. Similarly, there would be so many Christian saints and mystics which operate within the brackets of yellow wavelength of between 570 to 600 nm., but with their individual energies. Several Sufi saints and mystics etc. will vibrate within the green (Islamic) energy wavelength bracket.

Again, for the purpose of this blog and to avoid the ‘we are better than you’ controversy, please note that all the chakras and colours are treated as equal and merely having diverse energies.

Now, for some other interesting bits. Before we condemn all those who wear stones or certain metallic rings as superstitious, let us remember that metals also have particular affinity to colours. When certain elements or their salts are used to burn as fuel in a flame test, they will emit certain colours. Each metal also has an emission spectrum. Similarly, those who have affinity to certain deities also wear certain type of stones which emit certain colours.  

I leave it for my other readers to research and put down the relations between various metals or stones and their respective spiritual energies. Similarly, I leave it for my other readers to decipher the link between various saptarishis and their relationship to certain energy bands. Similarly since planets also emit various colours, they also have significance on our inclinations, which I leave for my readers.  

Before I finish, let me remind that only when white light passes through the pyramid it transforms into seven colours. In other words, the other side of our coloured light is white light. Hence, it is not a coincidence that the real pyramid is a unique structure for spiritual transformation well-known to those in the occult.  Again, it will be the pyramidal framework in our mind and perceptions which will help us get from our narrow religious inclinations to pure white light (divinity).

On this note, without complicating things further, wishing all my readers a wonderful happy, harmonious new year 2018.  

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback , Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He can be contacted on Twitter through @KaRmasutraTKOS

Why I don’t like Bonsai…. And other thoughts on vegetarianism

Recently, an avid meat eater asked me about the ethics of vegetarianism, which I seemed to have advocated implicitly through my ideas on karmic reality of cells and organs (in the chapter on ‘Idiosyncrasies’) in my book Karmasutra.  The question was this: if vegetarians claim that killing of life is unethical, are they themselves not guilty of killing plants?

Before I go further and answer this question, I felt a disclaimer is warranted: I am not a vegetarian. I do eat meat, but increasingly try to avoid meats of higher animals, or, if unavoidable in social milieu, try to limit the quantity I take.  Perhaps some people might accuse me of stark hypocrisy, which is a label I am happy to embrace.  Having said this, I also believe that scientists who proclaim, based on their own research, that cigarette smoking is highly injurious do not necessarily negate the truthfulness of their statements merely because they themselves might be occasional smokers.  

Now that the disclaimer has been made and the label of hypocrisy embraced, I can state that ethically, in terms of karma, there are no two ways about it. Killing of animals, especially higher animals with a well-developed sense of intelligence, emotions, pain etc. merely for food or protein, when there are other viable alternatives present, is ethically untenable.

Here is where my friend’s question fits in. After all, as my meat-eating friend asked me, if killing of life is unacceptable on ethical grounds, why is it okay to ‘kill’ plants but not fish or chicken? I recently watched an Asian TV channel debate on cow slaughter and found the same argument being repeated by one of the panellists. 

It is worthwhile going into this argument - but in my typical style, touching digressions here and there.

The cornerstone of living a karmically higher quality ethical life is to ascertain the wish of any living or non-living creature before we do anything with it. This applies to every form of ‘intelligence’ and consciousness – from the lowest (what we in common parlance refer to as ‘non-living’) to higher forms such as humans.  Anything done against the will of the being is a negative karma. Of course, as I have mentioned in Karmasutra, all molecules have some form of life, even those which we today consider to be ‘non-living’ objects. Just because our present limits of science do not permit us to communicate with a stone idol or an ancient statue or a car does not mean that there is no vibration flowing through them. There is indeed some subtle vibration flowing through them and each complex machine or so-called ‘non-living’ object has a wish and an intelligence of its own. ‘Non-living objects’ also proceed through life sticking to their dharma (put in a simplistic way, dharma means ‘duty’). For example, an average car has the dharma to be driven.   It is happy to be driven because that is the purpose of its creation. But the car is not happy to be abused, driven so terribly that its engine or some of its parts get worn out much before time.  If the car could speak in our language, it would tell us that ‘look, what you are doing is causing my tyres to get worn out faster’ or ‘please do not drive at this speed at this high speed, because I am not designed for it’.  Anyway, we can have an elaborate separate blog on the subject of the will of ‘non-living’ objects. In this blog,  let me stick to the issue to the consent and will of plants and animals.

Now, when the ancient rishis (spiritually accomplished seers) of the East wanted to make advances into spiritual areas they started avoiding meat. There were several reasons but one major one was the ethics of not killing any life.  Unfortunately and sadly, as of now, because our system of Western science has not yet designed the appropriate mechanism to communicate clearly with forms of consciousness which are substantially different from humans, the Western thinking is that the focus should be on the welfare of human being. Needless to say,  this is selfish and one cause of the rising environmental damage to our planet is caused by this thinking that everything exists in our planet for the benefit of humans, to be used or abused by us.  On an unrelated front, this focus on welfare of humans globally, has given rise to the whole paradigm and industry of Human Rights.  Even in democratic societies, human will is considered the one which is to be respected, especially if the human will does not harm another human’s life or property. If a person abuses a liver by consuming excess alcohol in the ‘freedom-loving’ West, there is no NGO which is ready to take up that cause, because the abused livers in humans cannot get together and stand in front of Parliament and shout slogans.  Similarly the skins cannot get together and put their case against those who abuse their skins for purposes of beauty by piercings, too much artificial tanning etc.

Coming back to this whole idea of ascertaining wish of beings, the rishis (ancient seers) were able to communicate or feel the wishes of organisms.  Therefore they would not kill plants to eat them. The leaves would be taken after asking the permission of the plants. Most of the plants would not mind giving up some of their leaves. Plants are selfless and always enjoy giving. They are not egoistic. They do not keep an account of how much they have given and expect proportionately in return, like many of us humans do. They are not transactional. For example, trees provide shade even to the woodcutter who is resting for a while before cutting them from their roots. Besides this altruistic nature, plants are also happy to provide us some proportion of their leaves because it is good for their overall health (just like periodic blood donation does humans some good). Plants are also happy to give their fruits because discarded seeds would help their procreation.

Having said this, like all beings, plants are not happy to annihilate their own existence. The great rishis understood this. That is also one reason why rishis would not eat vegetables which consisted almost entirely of the main root of the plant.  They would avoid main root vegetables and stick to leaves. They might also use the fruits given willingly by plants.  (Here, when we refer to fruits we are talking botanically.  What is considered a fruit botanically is often treated by those who eat and cook as vegetables simply because these ‘fruits’ lack sugar and are more savoury. For example, Bell pepper or mild chillies should be considered a fruit rather than a vegetable in the strict sense.  Interestingly many ‘vegetables’ such as spinach are leaves.) 

The rishis (seers) would often eat these fruits etc. uncooked, because cooking often destroys what the fruits/vegetables have to give us. If plants could speak to us loudly in words, they would have said that they will donate their leaves and fruits to us, only if we agree to eat it uncooked (in most cases). After all, cooking by strong heat also often destroys the seeds of plants and thus destroys their intended purpose of procreation. 

Hence, the pinnacle in terms of ethical living would be to stick to leaves, fruits (including vegetable ‘fruits’) and any other plant kingdom product which does not kill the plant itself. When we eat root vegetables like potatoes, onions, radishes, carrots, we could keep this in mind. Killing a plant, of course, in most cases, is still far less worse than killing a cow or a goat for food, but in my humble opinion, it is possible for us humans in today’s world (at least in the Western world) to be nourished without killing a plant by its root.

Now let us dwell a tad deeper into nuances. If we are very much used to eating central roots, what do we do? Perhaps a slightly ameliorating way would be - in a field, if we have to pluck a plant from its main roots, to make sure some plants are killed while others are left standing.  Of course, it is still against the will of the individual plant which is plucked from its roots and killed, but we are also telling the plant that we are not destroying their whole clan.  I know, this is clutching at straws, but small nuances of mercy and love always help.

We are able to live in this world while sticking to what plants give to us willingly and joyfully.  Many great rishis and munis (great seers and meditators) lived like this, based on this abiding principle of not taking anything by force and coercion, but only accepting gifts given with love. (There are other reasons also why many rishis and great spiritual masters avoided eating onion and garlic, but let that remain for another blog.)

Today many vegans also avoid drinking milk, while true vegetarians in India love having milk-based products and do not see any conflict in calling themselves vegetarians. [In my humble opinion, those ‘vegetarians’ who eat egg, prawns or fish are certainly not ‘vegetarians’,  although in some parts of the world these people find it fashionable to call themselves ‘vegetarians’. ] 

I would say that those who drank milk and used dairy products in ancient India included many rishis and seers.  Some people would argue that if the rishis were ethical, how could they drink milk? After all, does the cow not produce milk for its calves? How can drinking milk be ethical? As I mentioned earlier, the rishis could communicate with or at least understand the wishes of the animals through the vibrations and movements. They could communicate with the cows easily. The special aspect of cows and many similar higher mammals is that they often produce milk in excess of the requirements of the calf.  A good cow is most happy to give away several litres of milk to its owners with love and affection, knowing well that a few litres given to its owners will not starve its calf. Moreover, the cow often wanted to express its gratitude to the owner for providing it with lush green grass and protection from the elements. Due to this, the cow would happily gift some of its milk to its owner. Hence, it is ethically consistent to obtain milk from the cow. The cow is also relieved to remove the excess milk from its system.  But the important thing to note is that the great seers had the ability to understand the will of the cow. It is now easier to see why devout adherents of the Hindu lifestyle often treat the cow as holy. Just because this argument is not always very well articulated does not mean there is no underlying truth here.

Since Brahmins (priestly class) in India have descended from ancient rishis and linked to these seers by gotra, they also are generally expected to follow the ethical footprints of these seers. (For readers who are not familiar with Hindu caste hierarchy, to put it simply, Brahmins are the highest in the caste order and are priestly class among Hindus. Upper castes in general and Brahmins in particular are expected to abstain from meat and keep a satvic (spiritually clean) vegetarian diet to maintain their holiness.)  Yet we see Bengali Brahmins and Gaud Saraswats eating fish as part of their mainstream diet. How does it fit in with their ethical paradigm then?  There is an ancient story about Gaud Saraswat Brahmins which I have heard.  There are many types of Brahmins, in India, based on their region of origin etc. Saraswat Brahmins, as the legend goes, lived by the banks of Saraswati river. When this river (some say, mythical river), dried up these Brahmins could not do their farming.  They were allowed to eat fish as per their diet.  

Within the myths inside the legends, as things in India go, there is another story. The story goes that the Brahmins from the South of India met the Saraswat Brahmins and expressed their outrage at the fact that Saraswats were eating fish.  ‘Being a priestly class how can you kill fish for food…?’ fumed the Brahmins from South India.  The Saraswats replied that they did not kill the fish. ‘We ask the permission of the fish… and live on their generosity. The long fish which permit us are caught by us and then we cut off their middles and use that for our food protein requirements. Then we join the heads and tails by chanting curative mantras (chants) and release them back into water and they go back to live and reproduce….’  When the South Indian Brahmins heard this reply, they approved of the conduct of the Saraswat Brahmins and went back chastened.

In fact there are cosmic lessons from this, for those meat eaters who somehow cannot embrace a purely vegetarian diet for various reasons.  Learning from the story of Saraswat Brahmins, some ethical alternatives for the spiritually inclined, to have meat, without killing animals for food could be : 

• Use medical sciences to take small animal cells and create whole tissues separately in the laboratory. For example, use small chicken cells to grow chicken breasts or chicken legs in the laboratory.  (Similar to developments in stem cells technology which can multiply and give rise to certain organs/tissues). Hence, in the future, meat lovers can eat a beef steak without killing a cow for it.  The whole laboratory/factory should be able to produce beef steaks by using a few cells taken from a living and healthy cow.  
• Eating only the meat of animals which have died natural deaths or deaths due to non-infectious diseases.  For example, the meat of chicken, goats or cows which have either died naturally or due to other diseases of a non-infectious nature (which does not make the meat unfit for consumption) could be eaten.

If we are increasingly opting for ethically grown coffee and sustainably fished salmon or tuna, there is no reason why the ethical meat eater cannot use the options given above, in the future, if eating meat is desired.

The whole spiritual philosophy of not doing anything against the wishes of another intelligent system, whether it is a plant life system or an animal life system is the backbone of cosmic harmony. As we humans evolve we must aspire to get to this level of spiritual evolution.  

Before ending this blog, a small note on the topic of Bonsai. Once, a spiritually accomplished person had told me not to keep a Bonsai tree in the house, as it seems, the Bonsai tree releases negative vibrations.  In fact, many Feng Shui and Vaastu (Indian system) experts say that Bonsai is not an auspicious to have in the house.

When I contemplated upon this, the reasons were not far to see. Bonsai is a symbol of sadism and torture. The plant is not allowed to die but its destiny of natural growth is cruelly destroyed, not once, but periodically and systematically. It is like a periodical torture regime.  Can we imagine, how we would feel if we were forced to remain 10 cms. tall (by repeatedly chopping off our growing limbs) merely so that others can view us as an object of amusement, show or entertainment?  We would definitely curse those who treat us so sadistically and also those who participate in our humiliation. The overwhelming sadness of the silent Bonsai tree releases these vibrations of sadness and melancholy into the rooms of the house in which it is kept.  Needless to say, the principle of like attracts like operates in the cosmic world. (Even when people use the phrase ‘opposites attract’ we must always remember that only those opposites which are alike in some fundamental ways get attracted to each other. To give a simple example, the male of the lion is attracted to the female of the lion, not the female of a snake.) Thus, the melancholy of the Bonsai attracts melancholy from the universe into the house.

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

Solutions for Improving Democracy – Continuous improvement solutions

In a previous blog on ‘Why democracy is not the best form of government’ (the link is http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/why-democracy-is-not-best-form-of.html), I had suggested why democracy in the present form, at least as practised in the West, is becoming increasingly flawed. As promised, I am back with my tentative list of solutions.  Here, I will try to explore some of the continuous improvement solutions – focused mainly on the elections process, which do not completely do away with the democratic system, but strengthen the system further.  I will also propose a detailed paradigm-busting model of governance, substantially different from democracy - as practised today, in my next post. 

For this post, the continuous improvement solutions are as follows:

1. Curtailing the power of rumour mongers and character assassins -  As highlighted in my earlier post on the problems of democracy created by IOP (Information overload paradox), in the present day and age, rumour mongers and character assassins have got a power of their own. Sitting behind an anonymous twitter handle or a fake Facebook account it is possible for people to accuse public leaders of murder, corruption, fraud or any other wrong-doing, without facing little, if any scrutiny, penalties or payback for this character assassination. In this scenario, whichever leader has a bigger army of motivated social media followers willing to attack his political opponent, tends to gain greater visibility. Like the Goebbellian quote says ‘a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth’, a false message propagating on social media and repeated often by others tends to be believed, at least partially. For example, I have seen social media messages or forwards, most of them spewed by anonymous users which make allegations that Obama is a secret Muslim or that Michelle is a transgender or that Hillary has paid money to all the moderators in debates etc.  Not one of them offer any credible evidence.

Hence, it is essential to have a mechanism to identify and hold those who start rumours to face a system where they must share their reasonable supporting evidence or face stringent punishment including huge fines or imprisonment. It is time for the internet to come together and finally come down universally on this scourge of abuse using anonymous identities. Actual print newspapers have made it compulsory for contributors – even those who write letters to editors, to provide real addresses and telephone numbers. In the online world, to some extent, the requirement for registration has curbed those who just shoot and scoot. But there is still a long way to go. It must be made possible to identify and hold those who assassinate characters on Twitter, Whatsapp or Facebook to account.

Needless to say, mainstream media also plays an important role in improving the quality of debate and discussions. A format for a more ethical and respectful debate has already been proposed here (the link is http://karmasutratkos.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/televised-political-debates-my.html).

2.Vetting process of candidates in political parties – In most democracies, even main political parties look at the prospect of ‘winnability’ and ‘potential for funds generation’ as the two important criteria for choosing their candidates.  If we look closely we will find that these two variables are themselves interlinked. Assuming other factors are the same, potential for huge funds (either personal money or capacity to raise money) itself makes a candidate ‘winnable’ because more money automatically means more advertising capacity, more PR, more big media presence etc. In fact, with more money, it is also becoming increasingly possible to manipulate social media with increased followers, Facebook page and other paid viral sensations.   In simple words, very rich people with an itch for power and status are almost able to buy their candidature from political parties. It is little surprise therefore that a person like Donald Trump faced little difficulty in reaching the top of Republican party presidential race. 

A possible solution to this is a clear vetting process. Within mainstream political parties a committee of people with impeccable honesty and integrity must look at each candidate application carefully without being influenced by their money power. Toxic candidates must be weeded out at the initial stage itself.

3. State support for Independent thinkers/professionals – In the present democratic system there is little scope for honest technocrats and thinkers to be in leadership positions. For example, an exemplary scientist who understands nuclear technology has little chance of being a minister for nuclear energy, unless he is connected to or ingratiates himself with some big political party. Similarly a great scholar and thinker in agriculture has little chance of being able to shape the agricultural policy of the country unless he/she is politically connected. This must change. In order to make it possible for honest thinkers, scientists, academics to contest elections and influence policies of countries, democracies must have a public funding system so that these thinkers and specialists have the access to minimum funds, required to credibly compete independently,  against other candidates put up by parties, in elections . Just like most democratic countries provide a state lawyer to an accused if unable to afford a lawyer of their own, the democratic countries must find a way to fund elections of deserving candidates without political clout or organisation. This list of exemplary candidates for which sizeable funding must be provided must be decided again by a committee and independent election commission. These scientists or experts must also be given access to a consultancy which provides services of marketing and other measures to improve their visibility.

4. Further transparency in election expenditures and methods of election propaganda – there must be further transparency in election expenditures, cap on election expenditures and a close audit of methods of election propaganda, so that even scientists or experts (the category listed above) are able to compete. Once the loose ends of the social media are tied up and it is possible to hold accountable those who assassinate characters without any evidence, both the methods of campaigning, funds spent on media, funds gathered should be further transparent. The whole funds- generation process, expenditure and utilisation of election campaign funds of all political parties should be carefully audited by a big forensic accounting specialist organisation working for an independent election commission. Those found guilty of large violations should be removed from elected posts

This list of the above measures need not be the comprehensive or the proverbial final word. Criticisms and additions are most welcome.  

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

Televised political debates: My suggestion for a ‘respectful debate’ format

We see debates all the time on television. Television channels love debates because aggressive debates, like action movies, increase their TRPs. Increasingly, the debate has moved from being a source of entertainment on television to an important - almost unavoidable part of election campaigns in many entrenched democracies such as US, UK, France and so on. European politics was a bit slow to adopt this American debate prescription, but as we saw recently in case of Macron and Le Pen in France, political leaders facing elections are finding it increasingly difficult to avoid appearing in a widely televised debate.

Before going further, I remember an old friend and my former manager, a great thinker, Prof. Subhash Sharma in Bangalore who had come out with the idea of 3D – Discourse, Dialogue and Discussion to build harmony. This was more than a decade back and at that time I had wondered why he did not come out with the idea of 4D – Discourse, Dialogue, Debate and Discussion to build harmony. I felt at that time that instead of Dialogue or Discussion, a fierce Debate more sharply brings out the intellectual flaws of an argument.

But since 2007, I have revised my views. Presently I am of the opinion that the current format of debates are not desirable as a means of showcasing the ability or competence of top political leaders. Let me quickly outline the reasons. I feel that since modern democracies and our pretensions of being ‘civilised ‘do not permit us to have gory and bloody sword fights, boxing contests, or shooting duels between leaders and challengers like in the ancient world, we have sublimed this ‘civilised’ aggression into what we call ‘debate’.

In a nice, friendly discussion, we are often willing to listen to people who make more sense than us. We are willing to learn and share knowledge. On the other hand, in debates, especially televised debates, there are often winners and losers. These winners and losers are either decided by the organisers of the debate or by public and media who are watching these high-profile debates. Since no one loves to be a loser, there is a higher likelihood that an opponent faced with a stronger argument would resort to insults and insinuations to put down the opponent, in another words, to give out (or believe themselves) the perception of ‘victory’.  

Increasingly, as seen by the debating style of Trump or La Pen, we see political candidates using aggressive name calling, vicious sarcasm or personal attacks to score winning points, get applause from their supporters or win acclaim on the social media. This use of heavy sarcasm for which there are no easy replies, personal insults and insinuations, creates anger between the debaters themselves. Of course, if the debaters are themselves operating in the realm of ideas sometimes the results of debate are good, but when the candidates want victory at any cost or if one candidate starts the trend of insults, we end up seeing an inferior discussion of ideas and less sensible arguments. The confluence of ideas that a great discussion could have been, degenerates into a feast of insults – liked often by TV audience, but bad for democracies where the public may decide their votes on the basis of the outcome of debates.

The audience, even in the Roman Colosseum, loved two men or animals savagely hurting each other to the point of one person’s death.  Today, in many TV debates, we have become this ruthless Roman audience who love to watch two people brutalise and wound each other through words in the form of a debate.

Secondly, is there any guarantee that a good debater who is sharp-witted will necessarily be a good President or Prime Minister?  If arguing well was the sole or the most important requirement of being a great visionary or leader, why shouldn’t the post of Presidents and Prime Ministers in democracies be reserved for the best lawyers in a country? After all, the best lawyers, by profession, are trained to be experts in arguing. 

In my opinion, the present form of debate seen on television is merely a competitive sport, like chess or tennis. If we do not expect our political leaders to be winners in tennis, chess or football, why should we expect that good visionaries and leaders will be winners in debates, especially the time-bound short format debates that we see nowadays on television?

Of course, some of my friends may argue that even in ancient India, which I often quote in my blogs, there used to be debates. I agree with this. One such legendary debate, the debate between Adi Shankaracharya, the reviver of Hinduism and Mandana Mishra (in around 8^th century AD), can be quoted here, for an understanding of the format of a fair and ethical debate. (The source is given below the text) 

“Mandana Misra was a distinguished practioner of the mimamsa philosophy. In this school of thought, a particular ritual is done, and the results are achieved instantaneously…. Mandana Misra was a perfect and adept ritualist who preached widely. The young and charming advaita vedantin philosopher, Adi Sankara, on his country wide tour was eager to debate with Mandana Misra, who was by then already very old. Mandana Misra reasoned that since he had spent more than half his life learning and preaching mimamsa, it would be unfair to debate with a youngster in his twenties who barely had any experience. Hence, with the intention of being fair on Sankara, Misra allowed Sankara to choose his own judge. Sankara had heard greatly about Misra’s righteousness and appreciated him for his act of fairness. But he was quick to decide that none but Mandana Misra’s wife herself can be the most appropriate judge for this debate. The debate between them commenced, and continued for six months nonstop.

Thousands of scholars gathered every day to watch and learn. Mandana Misra, at a ripe old age, still remained a man with very sharp intellect and a very solid grasp of logic, but he was slowly losing. Despite being such a young man, Sankara’s realization of the ultimate Brahman and his knowledge of Maya, enabled him to win over Misra’s arguments easily. At the end of this 6 month period, Misra was almost ready to accept defeat, when his wife, Bharathi, declared that in order to defeat a man in debate, the opponent should also defeat his wife.

Bharathi was a learned scholar herself and a very clever one at that. Knowing very well that Sankara was a strict celibate, she immediately started discussing conjugal relationships and marital obligations. Sankara confessed that he had absolutely no knowledge in this area, because he was a celibate. However, Bharathi felt that she should give Sankara some time to study about this topic before resuming the debate. Sankara immediately accepted the offer and left to start his studies. Through his yogic powers he came to know of a certain king who was about to die. He instructed his disciples to preserve his body, which he temporarily left to enter the dying king’s body. The king happened to be a very evil man. Yet his wives were loyal to him and were in tears when the king was in his deathbed. Suddenly, when the king’s body woke up, one of the wives noticed that the king had recovered under rather mysterious circumstances and appeared to have become a changed man. Sankara learnt from that woman, all that he needed to know about conjugal experiences and on his way out of the body, he blessed that lady who had taught him so much. Empowered with this new knowledge, Sankara returned to resume the debate with Bharathi. This time, he was clearly unbeatable. Bharathi and Mandana Misra bowed their heads in humility and accepted defeat and became followers of Adi Sankara and staunch vedantins.”

Excerpt from source : https://ourdharma.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/the-mandana-misra-vs-adi-sankara-debate/

Without delving deep into the contents of the debate, there are key learnings for us, from this format of debate.

1. The debate takes place in an environment of respect and fairness. Mandana Mishra, shows his fairness when he asks Shankara to choose his own judge. Shankara,  on his part, instead of taking advantage of this offer and choosing a biased judge, decides to further excel in this fairness by choosing Mandana Mishra’s own wife as the judge.

2. The debate is not concluded within 1 or 2 hours like our present day TV debates, but within six months, which gives time to the debaters to rest, reflect on their arguments, concede various flaws in their logical positions etc. In short, in today’s TV debates the person with the quick acerbic tongue often wins. However, in long debates, conducted over several days and weeks, there is time for each opponent to evaluate the arguments and calm their minds enough to focus on ideas rather than persons or insults.

3.  Shankara, despite being a great thinker and philosopher had the amazing humility to confess about his lack of practical knowledge in the area of sexuality because he was celibate. He did not pretend to know about an area just in order to win the debate.

 4. Bharathi, the wife of Mandana Mishra again showed fairness, when she allowed Shankara time to study sexuality in depth, rather than using Shankara’s lack of knowledge of sex as a point to declare victory. She allowed Shankara to gain sufficient expertise in that area and then come back to resume the debate. This clearly tells us that the purpose of both opponents through this debate was to ensure the emergence of higher knowledge and ideas and not to be declared ‘winner’, as we see in the bitterly fought television debates conducted so often nowadays.

5.  Bharati and Mandana Mishra, when overwhelmed by superior ideas and logic, showed their greatness and humility by becoming the followers of Shankara’s ideas. They did not resort to sarcasm or violent personal attacks to massage their own egos or to pretend that they did not lose the debate.

Of course, in today’s busy world, it is not possible to have this kind of a quality debate spread over weeks, between opponents like Trump/Hillary or Macron/ Le Pen. Hence, my prescription for a compassionate model of debate, tweaked for the present age is as follows. To begin with, in this respectful model of debate, in a televised discussion/debate, it must be clearly mentioned that there are no winners or losers. It should take the form of a discussion in every way. The two political candidates must start with spending ten minutes in silence. This ten minutes of silence, should be telecast live. This time for silence, would be meant for only for meditation, introspection and calming the mind. During the introspection/meditation breaks it must be compulsory for the debating candidates to close their eyes and spend time with their own minds and not distract themselves with any activities such as peering through their notes or engaging in conversations. 

After this ten minutes silence, the candidates would discuss the issues in a spirit of love, compassion and sharing ideas. They should give credit to each other for good ideas and be willing to revise their own ideas. They should be encouraged to ask questions to each other in a spirit of camaraderie. If one candidate becomes aggressive, sounds angry or highly sarcastic, the moderator must immediately pause the debate and further provide a five-minute introspection/meditation break to calm the agitated minds. After the break, the candidates must shake hands or hug each other again and start afresh with a spirit of compassion and affection. If required, the debater who first made the aggressive remark must apologise to the other debater and withdraw the remark. If the apology and withdrawal is not forthcoming, then the whole debate must be terminated. 

Some people may laugh out loud at this prescription by me. After all, there are still some parts of the world where it is considered to execute law-breakers by stoning them to death, and here I am, talking about respectful debate. I am sure, when the first human fight-to-kills were proscribed in various parts of the world, those who were used to these sadist games of gore and blood must have laughed at those who stopped it or ridiculed them as faint-hearted idiots.

The point I make is that as we evolve in our humanity, our approach to every issue must also evolve and become spiritually and ethically refined. Gently, but firmly, we must remove the violence and aggression which are in human minds. Seeds of aggression and violence exist first in our minds, then they come into our words and finally translate into actual physical violence. Hoping that our judiciary and legal systems will prevent physical violence, when we callously allow violence, anger and aggression to seep into our minds at every step of public interaction - that is not a long-term remedy. When we incentivise the use of sublimated aggression like we see in televised debates and give our implicit approval of nastiness in televised debates, as sources of entertainment, we are sending the message that verbal aggression, without use of explicit 4-letter abuse, is ‘okay’.  

Western civilisation is unnecessarily obsessed with the macho image culture which glorifies aggression as something desirable. Since aggression in the form of physical violence is increasingly becoming unacceptable in our lives, we have sublimated this aggression to our workplaces to some extent (in our use of power as the tool for getting work done) and in our debates. In my opinion, the earlier we get rid of this sublimated aggression from various areas of life, the easier it will be to build a compassionate, harmonious world.  The choice of political leaders is the first area from which the practice of aggressive television debates as a means to campaign and win votes, must be removed. I am happy to hear the news that Theresa May, Prime Minister of Britain will not have a head to head debate with Corbyn before the elections. 

©Staju Jacob, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

A friendly discussion on Hinduism, India and the World...

One of my good friends Mr. Naresh S and myself, both ardent admirers of Hinduism, and who love to dabble in various ideas, had this friendly discussion on how things may pan out for Hinduism and other religions in India and the world to come. The discussion was very interesting with various perspectives. Like in real life private, informal, discussions, sometimes it goes all over the place. I have not unnecessarily edited it. I have only restricted myself to corrected the spelling errors, grammatical errors and in rare instances, occasionally modified a sentence slightly for clarity. Many of us who grapple with similar ideas and arguments about Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and the future of these religions in the Indian context, might find this discussion useful. The text which follows SJ (highlighted in yellow) stands for my words,  while NS (highlighted in blue) stands for my friend, Naresh S.  The words in square brackets are my own comments as the editor of this chat. This same blog is also available on http://wowblog2u.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html, published by Mr. Naresh S. 

Background : It all started with Mr. Naresh S sharing a video on WhatsApp where the speaker in the video was suggesting that Hindu religious texts should be compulsorily introduced in all Indian schools.  Here is the actual discussion for you. 

[After the video was seen, Staju Jacob (SJ) initiated this discussion by commenting…]

Staju Jacob (SJ):  I am more in favour of introducing some knowledge of spirituality in schools without any particular isms.... For instance, basics of how to pray - how to connect with one's own spirituality - basics on how to read various religious texts and understand the inherent spiritual message etc. After this basic knowledge is imparted, students, when they grow up and reach High school level can opt for one or the other religious study in depth.... For instance, those who want to understand the Quran better can do so... those who want to go deeper into Gita or Bible or Guru Granth Sahib can do so

Naresh S (NS): 👍 And so all countries should do the same then.

SJ: Yes free societies without spiritual training is bad for societies. The current generation of many white [Caucasian] people who are completely untrained in spiritual search practices will find boredom and may need to resort to some form of drugs alcohol etc. to fill what they perceive as a mental vacuum even when they are materially very successful.

NS: England is full of Church of England schools (both state and private). And also Catholic and Jewish to a smaller extent. Very few Hindu, Muslim or Sikh schools get funding. Also, this country is one where Church of England is the established religion.

SJ: But only in catholic schools some form of religion is taught only to Catholic children.  To others I don't think there is any spiritual training given,  as far as I know.

NS: Here you can get troubled or attacked for telling the truth about religion, constitution and atrocities in their history.

SJ: Well, I think Shashi Tharoor recently did a good job of telling these things

NS: Yes he's high level too. He uses charm and diplomatic methods

SJ: I think at least the British are listening now.  In India things are going a bit bad I think. People are more routinely using violence if they disagree with your views.

NS: He's (Shashi Tharoor) not a hard liner like a few Africans demanding compensation and bringing charges of crimes against humanity

SJ: I think India was more liberal when I was growing up.  [Recently] ‘Padmavati’ set in Maharashtra torched, crew beaten up -

http://toi.in/mtPloZ/a20ai

NS: Even here you dare not voice your opinion in the wrong crowd

SJ: Well, here you can criticise monarchy and even say that London should be a separate county or that Scotland should be a separate country

NS: Too liberal /too open?  And allowing everyone to convert to Islam and Christianity. Scotland is trying to be a separate country.

SJ:  But if you go to India and say Kashmir should be separate country your life could be in danger if you are not a well-known person.

NS:  In Kashmir, Muslims have more rights than Hindus in some things.

SJ: Well, I think the issue of conversion should be dealt with by using development and education -- automatically it will stop The other thing is that we should have more police to public ratio to implement laws.

NS:  There are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan; hence Pakistan was not necessary.

SJ: I think Pakistan should become secular and perhaps join with India like US and Canada. Entire SAARC should be one nation I feel. Sri Lanka, Pakistan Bangladesh etc.

NS:  Yes I think so too. They should become secular and join India. Yes all can be secular and join up.

SJ: Yes

NS: 👍👍. Many in Pakistan are not happy

SJ: As far as I think long term despite the worry of some people [in India] of the danger to Hinduism,  I think it will thrive and by 2050 I think Hinduism will be second largest religion globally after Islam.

NS: Yeah maybe

SJ: While Hindu population might decrease in India if things continue the same way - they will go up in most developed countries.

NS: Muslim [population] will grow everywhere

SJ: In UK alone,  in the last 30 years close to 170 Hindu temples or more (as per my knowledge) have come up whereas there were very few in 1960 or so. Please correct me if my data is wrong

NS: U.K. is more tolerant than it used to be but the constitution is Church of England

SJ: I think yes but it may also change in the future as Hindu population goes up. Church itself is changing and incorporating many principles of Hinduism within its teachings slowly

NS: Despite constitution being there are more MPs and Lords of ethnic minority than other western countries

SJ: Yes. [But] I think in course of time world will adopt more and more Hindu ideas. Although because of their ego they might not acknowledge it is a Hindu idea.

NS: Some very good ideas. But people do not portray the goodness properly. [After all], Hinduism is the oldest religion / civilisation known.

SJ: Well you are right. The Caucasian race is often obsessed with thinking they are the best. They have difficulty understanding spiritual systems which do not fall into -1 or +1 kind of logic.

NS: Yes agree. And high focus on gathering/ aggression. Possibly colder climates. There are a few good Hindu organisations in U.K.

SJ: I think lot of Hindu organisations are trying to make aggressive groups in India which believe in violence. I think it is not good in the long run for India because in my opinion it is not genuine Hinduism.

NS: Yes agree. Maybe, to combat aggression in Islam and Christianity.

SJ: I think genuine Hinduism is a spiritual and ethical fountainhead. For example,  Lord Ram [from Hindu epic Ramayana] did not hate Kaikeyi because she was the cause of his exile in forest. He won her over with love on course of time

NS: 👍

SJ: Yes maybe these guys feel that there is some aggression coming from Islam and Christianity and this is the only way to combat it. [But] I think systemic and ethical solutions are needed.

NS: Must be scared of what has happened in the past - half of Hinduism wiped out because others used force.

SJ: Well that is true. But I don't think at that time the kingdoms in India saw themselves as one India.

NS: True. But you need a sword to defend against a sword.

SJ: For example, many Hindu rulers have also killed so many fellow countrymen. For example, Ashoka invading Kalinga. Similarly, Marathas invading Bengal. Similarly higher castes have done so much atrocities against lower castes. Even today in Kerala some higher caste Namboodiri Brahmins won't touch lower castes or even Christians and Muslims.

NS: Long ago history. There's been Roman Empire, Alexander, etc. Also more recently the USA. Canada. Australia and New Zealand are all build on blood of native red Indians and aborigines virtually eradicated.

SJ: I think in ancient India there was this concept of Bharatvarsha which consisted of many small kingdoms --- but in today's concept I think the whole world is the Bharatvarsha and different countries are equal to different kingdoms. But some people are still stuck on the ancient geographical idea of Bharatvarsha . This creates problems because some of the kingdoms mentioned in ancient Bharatvarsha is in Afghanistan etc

NS: I don't think many people even know of it.

SJ: The problem is that in a globalised world the boundaries of countries are collapsing. Also, the time taken to travel from South India to North India in ancient times was much more than what it takes to travel from India to US... therefore it is essential that those who read Gita and understand the global vision must understand that whole world is Bharatvarsha today. The reach and power of internet, telecommunications and media make this a small one global world. In fact Christians and Muslims are increasingly treating whole world as their field whereas many Hindus are still stuck on the idea that we should 'protect' Hinduism within four walls of India.

NS: Totally agree. Hindus should also spread their religion like Muslims and Christians

SJ: In fact if you gaze into the future --- it is possible that more intellectual Brahmin Hindus will increasingly move into Countries such as UK US Australia Canada ---  and leave India as India becomes hotter and hotter [in terms of climate].  It also [becoming] more unlivable due to population growth and net migration from Bangladesh etc .

NS: Yes

SJ: Now, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it because in ancient times also Brahmins had moved from banks of Saraswati to South India etc.  At that time, they must have felt the same pain of moving from one country to another. But if I tell this to Hindu leaders today in India they will be very mad at me and call me anti national and enemy of India.

NS: 👎

SJ: So I think lot of Hindu organisations have difficulty viewing the big picture and they are obsessed with the four walls of present day India. However despite the good army and so on, China is slowly eating away Indian territory inch by inch. Of course I feel India should make itself strong and keep itself as the fountainhead of wisdom ethics and spirituality but Hindu organisations must also view the entire globe as the playing arena.

NS: Yes China is growing. Indians are more scared of the brain drain and capital drain from India.

SJ: Yes my question is that why should Indians not think of influencing developed countries such as US or UK and getting these nations to see the wisdom from East ... so in course if time these countries should be [more] Hindu so that even if Indian territory goes down Hinduism does not get destroyed.

NS: Yes true; some people are putting Gita in hotel rooms in USA but that is minor; also Sikh prayers were said at a public congregation in California a few months ago. But need to influence the politics and constitution, for example,  in U.K. they do not allow Hindu or Muslim (religious) representatives in the House of Lords but they have 27 Bishops and the Chief Rabbi. Also Prince Charles said to a newspaper that he would be leader of faith in general (not just head of Church of England (hopefully he meant a secular constitution)

SJ: What is most likely to happen is that as more and more people understand Hinduism better... more and more Christians and Islamists will adopt the principles of Hinduism and incorporate it into Islam and Christianity without calling it Hinduism (obviously to save their face). In my humble opinion, even if this happens it is still good for the world because the function of a candle is to provide light. Who lights it or who gets credit for lighting it is not that important. Hinduism is a pathway of scientific spiritual ethos and ultimately it will benefit the world even if people who adopt it call it by another name....

NS: I agree that spreading the light or spirituality is important like Radha Swamis as an example class themselves as a spiritual organisation. But letting ones Religious teaching being hijacked or stolen and sold under guise of other religions would be sad and a sell-out. A lot of Hindu teachings, science, etc have thus been hijacked and guised as English or western- what a shame!

SJ: Yes it is a bit of shame, but I think in the end those who adopt Hindu principles will get the benefit. Hinduism is meant for welfare of all, even those who deny it credit. I think some Hindu leaders might call it digestion, but in my opinion even if the others give credit to us. It is just a matter of our ego massage ... if we are not so bothered about massaging our own ego,  then it should not matter to us whether the principles taught in India are being used for the welfare of the world (even if no credit is given to ancient India).

NS: That's very giving and generous like the past - yes Moguls and British please loot us, exploit us and convert us.

SJ: Even if the principles of Hinduism is repackaged as Sufism or Scientology or some other ism.... I think as long as it brings welfare to the world - I think it is good for the world. In my opinion we should lawfully protect our heritage in India care for it etc. And also keep India militarily strong to prevent aggression like we have seen in history. But the point I am making is that despite all these - if people of other religions adopt Hindu teachings within their religious dogma - it is good for the world. And we should not grudge it.

NS: Yoga and meditation already is - some with spirituality. [It is late midnight] Yawn…I'm going to meditate now. Bye

SJ: Ok let us continue tomorrow on this point ... I am [also] feeling sleepy.  Nice discussion.  

[After the discussion was over we both agreed that it might be good to publish it in some form, perhaps in the form of a blog.]

Important Disclaimer: Some arguments in this discussion are intellectual positions taken for the sake of discussion/debate only and may not reflect the actual thinking or personal opinions of Mr. Staju Jacob and Mr. NS.

©Staju Jacob and Naresh S, 2017.

Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc.  He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS 

Naresh S is a Chartered Certified Accountant and used to be a part ime Associate Professor at an International University in London for 12 years. He also has a MBA from Cranfield University and another MSc and a BSc. Twitter  @wowblog2u .