I recently met a gentleman whose family tree traces itself to the 8^th century philosopher and scholar, Mandana Mishra of Mithila, Bihar. Not many of us have heard of Mandana Mishra, or his amazing wife, Ubhaya Bharati. But their story opens up for us an India, extending from Kerala to Bihar to Kashmir, where intellect was celebrated along with sensuality. Very different from today’s India where spiritual gurus are embarrassed to talk about sex and sexy sirens are not taken seriously when they discuss anything intellectual.In the 8^th century, a young man from Kerala called Shankara (now known as Adi Shankaracharya, the first teacher called Shankara) refused to marry. Instead, he became a monk and traveled across India determined to bring back the people’s faith in Vedic thought, using words and logic as his weapons. He had two major opponents. The first was Buddhism, which rejected the idea that the Veda is the source of the truth. The second was Mimansika, which celebrated the idea that the Veda is the source of truth, but insisted it can only be realized through ritual, not discussion. Buddhism was a monastic order. Mimansika, however, favored the married life for unless one is married one is not allowed to perform Vedic rituals. Shankara was a monk like the Buddhist but he favored the Vedic thought like the Mimansikas. Thus he embodied a new approach.

Shankara went to Kumarila Bhatta, who had successfully challenged many Buddhist and Vedic scholars to become the most revered Mimansika. But Kumarila was dying. So Kumarila directed him to Mandana Mishra. “You will know his house when you find there caged parrots discussing such abstract concepts such as is the Veda self-validated, is the world a reality or a perception, is it karma or God that brings about results!”

Like Kumarila, Mandana was a ritualist and a married man. He was at first annoyed to see a celibate monk. He eventually relented and all the scholars of the land gathered to watch Mandana Mishra debate against Shankara. The difference between the two was stark: Mandana Mishra was older, married and a believer of rituals. Shankara was young, celibate, who believed in philosophical speculation. Who would be the judge? Everyone agreed none was more suited for the role than Mandan’s wife, Ubhaya Bharati.

Shankara’s logic was razor sharp, his arguments incisive. Mandana Mishra was about to accept defeat when his wife said to Shankara. “You claim to have full knowledge of the world. But how can you? You are not married. You have no knowledge of kama-shastra.” By kama-shastra, she meant knowledge of sex as well as all other sensory pursuits such as food, fashion, fine arts and performing arts. Shankara had to admit his knowledge of the world was incomplete.

To complete his education, Shankara is said to have entered the body of a dying king called Amaru, ruler of Kashmir, and through his body experienced every aspect of kama-shastra, and recording his experiences as a collection of erotic love poems titled Amaru-shataka, which also serve as metaphors for spiritual insight.

When Shankara returned he bowed to Ubhaya Bharati who was Saraswati, goddess of knowledge, to him. And Mandana Mishra bowed to Shankara and described him as the mythic hermit, Shiva, who had beheaded Brahma, father of rituals. From that day onwards, Mimansa was divided into two schools: the old ritual school of Purva Mimansa and the new intellectual school of Uttar Mimansa. This later school evolved into what is today called Vedanta, acme of Vedic thought.

Suddenly the newspapers are filled with reports of parents wanting to kill their children. They are being hacked, smothered, even electrocuted. The reason: honor. If a child marries outside the caste, it is dishonor; kill them. If children marry outside the religion, it is dishonor; kill them. If children marry outside the class, it is dishonor; kill them. If children marry outside the gotra, it is dishonor; kill them. If children marry outside the class, it is dishonor; kill them. If the children turn out to be homosexual, it is a dishonor; kill them. And if the government intervenes, demand the banning of marriage across gotra, class, caste, religion, and of course, ban homosexuality.

Not every one is so blatant. ‘Killing’ can be subtle: break all ties with the children, disinherit them, ignore them, harass them, abuse them and encourage others to abuse them. This has been happening forever. It seems to have peaked in recent times, for suddenly, thanks to the liberalization policy, the world has opened up. The television brings home tales of possibilities. Development brings home the resources to break free. Suddenly, children can make choices! And that bothers parents.

In our mythology, we celebrate the obedient child who sacrifices for the joy of the parents – Ram who willingly goes to the forest when his father asks him to, Puru who willingly suffers the old age of his father, Bhisma who sacrifices conjugal life so that his father can remarry, Sita and Amba who never goes back to her father’s house when faced with misfortune. This is very unlike Greek stories where sons kill their fathers and uncles. Zeus kills his father Cronos, Cronus kills his father Uranus, Jason kills his uncle Pelias, Oedipus kills his father Lauis. So when we are talking about Westernization, what we are basically saying is the dominant narrative of our culture is changing: “Children are not submitting to the father. The father is being expected to submit to the child.” And we don’t like it.

And yet, in Indian culture, we have the story of a son who kills a father-figure. Krishna kills his maternal uncle, Kamsa, and the event is celebrated. Krishna moves out of his foster father, Nanda’s house, and Nanda does not berate him for it. Though like Ram, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, he behaves very differently, breaking rules, and still being celebrated. For what was appropriate for Ram is not appropriate for Krishna; both belong to different ages or yugas, each one faces a different context and challenge, and responds accordingly.

The issue is not about obedience or tradition. The problem is that for the ‘honor-killing’ parents, children are property. They want their property to behave as they want them to behave. They don’t want bulls that wander freely. They want to castrate the bulls who, as oxen, will be mild, docile, obedient, willing to bear the burden of the family cart. The relationship here is not about love, but the very opposite – power. Love is to allow children to grow up, be independent, take their decisions and be responsible for the consequences. Power is about control, dependence, domination, and the demand for obedience and subservience. Killer parents, and their supporters, may masquerade this as tradition, honor, culture, even love – but they are fooling no one.

]]> http://devdutt.com/right-to-kill-my-child-4/feed/ 43 http://devdutt.com/from-survival-to-significance-2/ http://devdutt.com/from-survival-to-significance-2/#comments Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:49:25 +0000 Rita http://devdutt.com/?p=2152 Published in Corporate Dossier, ET, 13 August, 2010

Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth who holds in her hand a pot. Pots are not natural; they are manmade. Presence of pots indicates presence of humanity. The pot holds a special place in human imagination because a pot changes humanity’s relationship with naure. Once water moves from a water body into a pot, it stops being everyone’s water. It now belongs to the person who owns the pot. Water in a pot has an owner. The pot enables humans to turn natural resources into personal property.

Property is a human idea, an artificial construction, not a natural phenomenon. Animals do not own nature. Animals have territory that they defend with brute force. But when another animal lays claim to its territory and it is unable to fight back, there is no court where an animal can go to appeal. There are no courts in nature; no law except might is right, survival of the fittest. Animals need territory in order to survive – to get access to food. Animals do not create territory for self-actualization. Herein is the difference between animal and humans, territory and property, water in the river and water in a pot, food in a tree and food in a basket. Humans need property not just to survive; humans need property in order to feel significant.

All living organisms die. Only humans introspect about death and wonder then about the point of life. Property gives humans a reason to live and it allows humans to defy mortality. “I may die, but my pot will outlive me.” Thus property gives human life a meaning; it validates existence.

When one says, that the purpose of the organization is to generate wealth – we are not simply referring to the human need to survive, we are referring to the human need for significance. There is enough wealth around to pull people out of poverty but there is never enough wealth to make people feel significant. For the human desire to feel significant is infinite. And this is the source of most conflicts.

Nagarjuna P. Raja built a hotel in a small town. The hotel was highly successful. It generated a lot of wealth. Now, he has appointed a manager to run the hotel so that he can achieve his lifelong dream of retiring in peace and enjoying his wealth, and not bother with its generation.

Unfortunately, every time he visits the hotel he finds something wrong. The manager, he feels, is not doing his job. This leads to arguments. The manager is exasperated. He tries to explain to Mr. Raja that he must be allowed to take a call to run the show but Mr. Raja keeps interfering. This is a classical conflict between the proprietor and the professional. Arguments are often logical but the cause of the conflict has nothing to do with logic; it is emotional.

What the manager, and Mr. Raja, do not realize is that the hotel is Mr. Raja’s pot. It is not only merely the source of money. It is about Mr. Raja’s sense of significance. When seems like a fight between Mr. Raja and the manager over the best way to manage the hotel, is actually Mr. Raja’s fight for his significance. If he remains indifferent to the running of the hotel, he feels invalidated. But in interfering with the hotel, he invalidates the manager. And so the two fight as two animals fight over territory. Only here they are not fighting for survival. They are fighting for significance.

While animals are clear why they are fighting, humans are not. The desire to feel significant is never a stated goal. It is an unconscious need. The hotel defines Mr. Raja’s image of himself. It justifies his existence on earth. Makes him feel he has done something with his life. Letting it into the hands of a manager seems logical, but he needs to remind himself, and the manager, constantly that it is his, and only his, pot. So long as this desire for significance is not acknowledged, the fight between Mr. Raja and the manager will never end.

This was the final episode of Season 1 (we are planning Season 2) in which we wanted to explore Indianness. This is a Future Group value. Belief in Indianness. Somewhere along the line, Indians have lost faith in themselves that there is wisdom in India and there is much to learn from Indian beliefs and customs. Somewhere along the line, we have allowed ourselves to become either defensive or apologetic. I believe that Indian ideas need to be seen through a fresh post-post-modern lens. The modern lens is very judgmental and looks at traditional thought in terms of right and wrong. The post-modern lens looks at all thoughts are being perspectives and does not respect any thought, be it traditional or otherwise. The post-post-modern lens looks at things in context appreciating the subjective realities of Indians and recognizing it as being different from those of other people. It is of value in some situations but not in all.

Segment 1: Desire vs. Destiny

Segment 2: Jugaad

Segment 3: Raas-Lila

Published in Devlok,  Sunday Midday, June 06, 2010

The editor of a magazine wanted me to be photographed wearing orange robes, a bell in one hand and a lamp in another, surrounded by images of gods and goddesses. This is what they believed a mythologist should look like. I refused and insisted they photograph me as I am! When the article was finally published, it stated: “Devdutt is very particular about the image he wishes to project. His smile is unsettlingly constant.” It suggested I was some sinister media manipulator, I felt. If I had submitted to wearing the orange robe, and allowed them to create an ‘image’ for me, would such a comment have been made, I wonder.

The event caused me to wonder: who constructs the images we see in the media. Is it what happened? Is it what journalists or media houses want to tell us? Or is it what we want to hear? What is the truth?

Ancient Indian wisdom, the Veda, is called Shruti, that which needs to be heard. What is heard is often colored by prejudices, hence we never quite hear the truth as told. That is why ancient Rishis spent their lifetimes purifying their minds and bodies so that they could hear the truth as it was. But still no one was sure if everyone saw the truth as it was.

Upanishads refer to a great conference organized by Raja Janak of Mithila. He invited all Rishis to discuss the nature of reality. Everybody came with a different view, though each one had heard the same thing. Upanishads means ‘come sit close to me’. In other words, it refers to close intimate conversations between two people, a seeker and a guru, a student and a teacher, a person who hears the story and a person who tells the story. Truth is that which is churned between what is said and what is heard.

Since ancient times, Indians have been advised to tell stories. Stories are called Ka-tha, which means ‘what happened?’ Stories were also called iti-hasa, which is now taken to mean history. In other words, stories were seen as the truth. The ancient Rishis accepted the fact that he who tells the story has his bias and so does he who hears the story. So why bother trying to separate fact from fiction.

Everyone wants to tell a sensational ‘breaking news’ story. Each one wants to bring a new angle. Naturally nothing is fair or balanced. Everything has a prejudice. What we hear is not the truth but a story – the Left wing story, the Right wing story, the story as NDTV sees it, or story as Tehelka sees it.

Stories play a key role in shaping our lives. Stories told by Hitler led to the Holocaust. Stories told by the British led to the Partition. Stories told by George Bush led to the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq. Stories are shaping our attitudes towards Pakistan and Pakistan’s attitude towards India. Chinese people are told only those stories that the government wants them to hear. Where is the truth, I wonder?

Price : Rs. 499/-

Buy from Flipkart.com

Pages: 372

High above the sky stands Swarga, paradise, abode of the gods. Still above is Vaikuntha, heaven, abode of God. The doorkeepers of Vaikuntha are the twins, Jaya and Vijaya, both whose names mean ‘victory’. One keeps you in Swarga; the other raises you into Vaikuntha. In Vaikuntha there is bliss forever, in Swarga there is pleasure for only as long as you deserve. What is the difference between Jaya and Vijaya? Solve this puzzle and you will solve the mystery of the Mahabharata.

7 reasons to buy Jaya: Illustrated Retelling of Mahabharata by Devdutt Pattanaik

1. The whole Mahabharata is presented systematically in 18 sections and108 chapters, restructured to facilitate easy reading and comprehension of his grand and complex meditation of the human condition.
2. The stories are embellished with 250 line illustrations; the style is unique, a break from standard visual formats (Amar Chitra Katha or DC comics)
3. It includes tales not just from the classical Sanskrit but also from regional and folk variants from across India and even South East Asia. There are women’s stories (Satyavati, Gandhari, Kunti, Draupadi) as well as queer narratives (Aravan, Budh, Ila, Shikhandi).
4. The story of Krishna is part of the great epic, from his birth to his death;even his song, the Bhagavad Gita, is retold in simple prose.
5. Every chapter has comments that draws attention to variations of the story, the intention of the story, the rituals and customs that may have emerged from the story and practiced even today. There are Duryodhan temples in Uttarakhand and Draupadi temples in Tamil Nadu, for example.
6. It explains why the epic is part of the grand Vedic cosmos and how it cannot be understood without appreciating Ramayana, Vishnu Purana, Shiva Purana and Devi Purana
7. This book has an ending that has never ever been told in any retelling of the Mahabharata. This ending is the reason the book was originally called Jaya by Vyasa.

The youtube video of the images

What came first? Gender discrimination or mythology? Does mythology sanction gender discrimination or is mythology a reflection of gender discrimination? The problem with symbols is that people look at them literally and so miss the whole point. Mythology are symbols communicating an idea. Male form is therefore ‘signifier’ of an idea and not what is ‘signified’. Same holds true for female forms. When Durga kills a male demon, it is not about women killing men. The image communicates a deeper idea that is often missed as we are in a hurry for a simplistic convenient ‘sign post’. I tackle this great problem of mythological studies in this episode. I also tackle the issue of caste. Hindu mythology acknowledges differentiation and hierarchy. Is that sanction? I don’t think so. Clearly something has been lost in translation?

Segment 1: Gender

Segment 2: Hierarchy

Segment 3: Caste

The Hindu way of life is rooted in what is called Vedic truths. It has a long history and has contributed greatly to Indian thought.

In the beginning there were set of chants or mantras. Compiled, they were known as samhitas or collections. The earliest of these collections was known as the Rig Samhita. The wisdom they contained was known as veda or knowledge. Later other collections came into being, such as Yajur and Sama and Atharva, containing in varying proportions the hymns of the Rig Samhita.

The mantras were used in two ways. They were chanted during magical rituals known as yagna that played a key role in society. Manuals that explained how these rituals had to be conducted were known as the brahmanas, so called because the rituals helped invoke the brahman, or the great mysterious force that animates the cosmos. The keepers of these manuals and performers of these rituals came to be known as (you guessed it!) as Brahmins. Another set of people saw the mantras rather differently. They felt that the hymns had to be heard and contemplated upon. Contemplation would reveal metaphysical truths about the cosmos.

The ritualistic approach was known or karma kanda while the intellectual approach was known as gyan kanda. Later the former ritualistic path would come to be known as the purva mimansa, meaning early investigations, and the latter intellectual approach would come to be known as uttara mimansa, meaning later investigations. The intellectual approach led to compilation of texts known as aranyaka or the forest-texts, indicating that those who celebrated this approach were hermits, very different in character from Brahmins who lived and thrived within society. Many believe that the forest-texts were written by kings and warriors who rejected the ritualistic Brahmins. These aranyakas were compiled and are now known as the Upanishads, dialogues and discussions on the nature of reality. King Janaka is supposed to have called a great conference where these ideas were discussed. The ideas that were discussed were so profound that it was concluded that they marked the acme of Vedic wisdom or vedanta.

Who were the Rishis then? They were the poet-sages closely associated with Vedic wisdom. Were they city-dwellers or were they the forest-dwellers? One is not clear. In mythology, they are both performers of yagna as well as performers of tapasya. Yagna was an external ritual while tapasya was a spiritual practice that involved withdrawing form the material world and involved contemplation, concentration and meditation. Some people classify the forest-dwellers further. There were the alchemists or tantriks and the analysts or yogis. Tantriks appreciated the material world as power or shakti, that could – through various practices -  be manipulated at will. Yogis saw the material world as a delusion or maya. Through analysis (samkhya) and synthesis (yoga) of hymns as well as experience, they looked beyond the material world and experienced spiritual reality.

As time passed, society found it difficult to relate to the ritualistic Brahmin or the forest-dwelling hermits, with their esoteric practices and highbrow philosophy. They turned to the simple ways propagated by the monk-teachers or shramanas. They brought the wisdom of the forest-ascetics to the masses. While the Brahmins said that all problems can be solved through ritual, the shramanas said that all problems were creations of the mind. The method of solving them was austerity and meditation. The path of austerity was propagated by monk-teachers of the Jain faith. The path of meditation was propagated by monk-teachers of the Buddhist faith. This happened around 500 BCE (Before Common Era, formerly known as BC).

Brahmins soon realized that they were losing ground to Buddhism and Jainism. They had to redefine themselves and reach out to the common man. The Vedic truths could not remain in an elitist framework restricted to priest and philosophers. It had to reach the masses. And the method for this was stories.

Stories were always part of ritual tradition. Stories were told to entertain priests and kings who performed yagna. But gradually stories became the vehicle of Vedic truths, so much so, that an act of listening to the story was equated to the yagna. In stories, the most profound Vedic thought was captured symbolically and narratively. The religion that spread through stories is often differentiated from the religion that existed prior to the arrival of shramanas. The pre-Buddhist religion is called Vedism to distinguish it from the post-Buddhist religion now known as Hinduism.

Hinduism spread through stories. And stories propagated three ideas –karma yoga, bhakti yoga, and gyan yoga. Karma yoga or the path of action was different from the earlier karma kanda. Earlier action was all about conducting rituals; but later, action was all about performing social duties and obligations. Stories basically celebrated the householder’s life over the hermit’s. Bhakti yoga or the path of devotion gave form to the ancient Vedic notion of brahman, the impersonal divine force invoked during the yagna. This gave rise to the idea of God. Through stories, people were encouraged to have an emotional relationship with God. Gyan yoga or the path of introspection gave an intellectual foundation to karma yoga and bhakti yoga. It was propagated by teachers or acharyas such as Shankara, Abhinavagupta, Ramanuja, Madhava and Vallabha. This was essentially Vedic wisdom, or what is now called Vedanta.

The Brahmins realized that ritual played an important role in binding communities. So rituals were not completely abandoned. They were enmeshed with stories. Stories invariably revolved around an image or a holy site. Newer rituals emerged, simpler rituals, that took the place of the earlier yagna. Thus began the practice of visiting holy places, taking dips in holy rivers and pools and most importantly going and looking at sacred images housed in temples. The act of darshan or looking at a sacred image was, like hearing a story, equated to getting in touch with Vedic truths. The ritual of puja replaced the ritual of yagna. Offerings were now made to images, recognizable anthropomorphic images, and not just fire. Through puja, divinity could be evoked in an otherwise inert object. Thus grand temple complexes were built around rocks, stone and metal images that were transformed into transmitters of divine energy through rituals and chants. Puja could also enhance the personal relationship of man and the divine. And so alongside temples outside the house, people were encouraged to have temples inside the house. God became a living entity who could be simultaneously housed in the village temple and the household temple and be taken care of like a guest with food, clothing and gifts. Unlike Vedic gods who were distant, reachable only through yagna, the later Hindu gods were very accessible, made tangible through stories and pujas.

This transformation from the ritual through the intellectual to the emotional ensured the survival of Vedic truths in India over 3000 years. There was time when there was a wide gap between the ritual-texts and the forest-texts. A similar gap is emerging today. On one side are the stories, the rituals and the fantastic images of Hinduism. On the other side are the philosophies gleaned out of Vedic texts. Not many are able to see the connection between the two. Reconnecting them is the need of the hour.

In Hinduism, killing a Brahmin is considered the greatest sin. And yet, most astonishingly, God keeps killing Brahmins. Shiva beheads Brahma. Ram kills Ravan. Krishna encourages the beheading of Drona. Why so?

The word Brahmin comes from the root ‘Brh’ which means ‘to grow’. The Brahmin was the noble teacher, he who facilitated growth – provided the direction, the path, the intellectual wherewithal that enabled people to grow. But growth in Hinduism refers to all round growth – material growth (Lakshmi), intellectual growth (Saraswati) and emotional growth (Durga/Shakti). Growth refers not just to one’s own growth but to the growth of others too.

Intellectual growth manifests in increase sensitivity to people around us and to patterns in the world around us. Emotional growth manifests in an increased sense of security that makes us pay more attention to the development of those around us. Material growth cannot happen without emotional growth; emotional growth cannot happen without intellectual growth. Wealth generation and wealth distribution demand intellectual and emotional growth. Brahmins, the intellectuals, were therefore critical for the growth of society, as a whole.

Neither Brahma, Ravan nor Drona demonstrate these traits. When Brahma created the world, the world took the form of a woman. He got attracted to this woman of his own creation and wanted to possess her. So he chased her, determined to possess her. In disgust, Shiva took the form of Bhairava and beheaded him, which is why Shiva is called Kapalika, the skull-bearer. Ravan, son of a Rishi, kicked his brother Kuber out of Lanka to become its king and then went on to abduct wives of other men for his pleasure. Drona, also son of a Rishi, taught martial arts to the Pandavas and the Kauravas and as fee asked his students to give him one half of Drupada’s kingdom, so that he could settle a score with an old enemy. All three are more interested in their own material growth. Brahma wanted to control his creation, Ravan wanted to dominate the world and Drona wanted to settle a score. They did not seem to be interested in facilitating the growth of others, which was the Brahmin’s vocation. Perhaps that is why they were beheaded.

Vinit, who runs a successful spare parts company, has grown from a small 1 crore outfit to a 30 crore outfit in five years. He created this company, nurtured this company and now is a highly admired small scale entrepreneur. “But I am not happy,” he says, “I have more money than before. But I am constantly worried about attrition and competition and client servicing. I am afraid all that I have built will collapse.” Vinit’s personal wealth has increased, so has the value of his company. There is growth in the number of clients, the earning per client, in the number of employees and their respective earnings. Vinit should be happy, but he is not.  He feels his head will explode.

Vinit needs to relook at his vision statement put down years ago after he left his high paying corporate job in Memphis, USA and returned to India. It had nothing to do with profits. It was all about creating world class spare parts locally at a fraction of the price. His aim was to be surrounded by simple engineers who were grounded in reality. He wanted an organization with the warmth of a small organization, not the coldness of a large corporation. Somewhere along the line, he forgot all about intellectual and emotional growth that would facilitate this. It was all about material growth. Perhaps the reason for this is that intellectual growth cannot be measured, nor can material growth. In fact measuring intellect and emotions results in de-growth. So the head and heart was ignored in the pursuit of the wallet. This has resulted in a Vinit who is less sensitive than he was when he started out, and less secure. His empathy levels are at an all time low. The Brahmin has been corrupted. Time to behead him.

Brahma, though creator, is not worshipped in India. When Shiva beheads Brahma, Brahma loses his fifth head and is left with four. He is, in effect, cut down to size, shaken out of his madness, to step back and reflect on his enchantment with Lakshmi. In reflection lies realization of Saraswati and Durga. Only when there is all round growth will Brahma, and the Brahmin, be worthy once again of adoration.

1.    What is the best way to introduce Hinduism to young children who are an ethnic and religious minority in the country where they are born and being raised?

I think the children must be told that different people look at the world differently. This is the most critical thought that a child must be given. A cat looks at water differently from a fish. A horse looks at grass differently from a lion. So differently people see the world differently.
Once this idea is established children must then be told that every person thinks their view is the only and correct view. But it is not so. We must allow others to have their views. That is love. And others must allow us to have our views. That is love too. Without this foundation, it will be difficult to help children deal with the pressures of being a minority.

2. What are some of the things a parent can do to get their child curious about their religion and culture without actually forcing them into learn about it ?

By making the rituals fun. Rituals are about doing things. Rituals are choreographed to connect with us symbolically. Making rangoli can be fun. Cooking prasad can be fun. Doing puja – bathing the image, dressing it up, feeding it, singing songs to it – can be fun. The child will notice that the fun is associated with a deep reverence. Then he will question. Often this the point where parents turn rituals into ‘holy cows’ and lose the opportunity to help their children gain an understanding of their cultural world.
Parents, most often because of their own lack of knowledge, turn the sacred into scary. The child will sense whether the parent truly respects the rituals and finds them empowering or if he doing it merely to reinforce his threatened identity. Often no one knows the reason why a ritual is performed and that is ok. Parents have to admit that they don’t know the reason and they are doing what their parents did and following tradition. Its ok not to know. And it is not necessary to understand everything in the world. Sometimes understanding comes over time. I notice many people have this urgency to know the meaning of rituals immediately. The search for meaning is either frustrating or leads to some rather bizarre conclusions.

3.When it comes to Hindu mythology, there are either over-simplified books (geared towards kids) and there are the scholarly tomes. Neither is a good fit for a curious young person who needs something in between they can read independently. What kind of books would you recommend for them ?

My books!  I became a writer because I saw this gap. Often the answers are not what the parents expect. The problem is that authors are burdened by wanting to make Hinduism look nice. The measuring scale is that of other religions. As a result writing becomes apologetic and defensive. People are trying but often I find writers have a poor understanding of the subject and so are unable to appreciate the complexities and so end up with awkward prose.
Try explaining the idea of Krishna surrounded by hundreds of milkmaids doing Raas Lila to a child. Are those girls, Krishna’s friends? So is it ok for a boy to have many girlfriends? Are those girls his wives? So is it polygamy? Rather than answer such blunt uncomfortable questions, some writers escape into metaphysics – using words like Paramatma and Jivatma which, unless you are a believer, sounds like gobbledygook.  At one level they are true, but like all symbols, there is no one answer. There are layers of answers. Many answers one finds are usually not what parents expect or find appropriate, because these stories are catering not just to children but adults.
To simplify them without being simplistic (and sometimes stupid) requires a lot of effort. The story is trying to show the idea of love that is unfettered by law and custom; thus the milkmaids are in no way related to Krishna. Now this idea can be quite scary to a parent. One has to go in stages. Simplistic answer initially then more complex ones. There is no one standard answer. There are many answers, each one suiting one’s age, one’s temperament, one’s emotional and intellectual maturity. This is Hindu pluralism.

4. Do you think children actually benefit from hearing or reading a watered-down versions of Ramayan and Mahabharat where the complexity of the characters and their motivations is all but lost ?

As people mature, stories evolve. The story told to a three year old is different from that which is told to a thirteen year old. We must keep telling children there is more. Provoke them to be curious. Include them in conversations about the characters. Say the mother and father discuss how Karna was killed. The child can overhear the various arguments. There is no right answer so one must allow the arguments to stand strongly without tilting one way or another. The child by overhearing this, again and again, will be able to appreciate the complexity of life – as Hinduism seeks to portray.

5. What would enable a child make the connections between religion, mythology and day to day life in the modern world ?

I think by making religion and mythology part of day to day life. So lets say we are discussing the war in Afghanistan. This can be associated easily with the Ramayana. Just as Ravan had no right to kidnap another man’s wife, the terrorists had no right to destroy the World Trade Centre. Of course, as the child grows up, the arguments can get more sophisticated. Why do we assume that the Americans are Ram? Maybe the terrorists see themselves as Ram, maybe the attack was the burning of Lanka. This will lead to discussions and debates. In these discussions and debates, pros and cons, the Argumentative Indian is born – one who is able to see things from multiple points of view before taking a decision.

6. How can learning about Hindu mythology the right way enable a young person to develop a deeper appreciation for the universality of the main concerns in all religions?

Yes and no. All religions have common features. But they also have uncommon features. Many people overlook the latter and this leads to conflict. For example, Hindus do not have the notion of Original Sin or Prophet. But like all religions, Hinduism is deeply concerned about what is appropriate social conduct (dharma) and happiness.
7. Do you have any recommendations for daily reading that may help a young person to navigate with greater confidence through their life – specially when the world outside is very dissimilar to the world inside their homes ?
Step 1 – Read the Amar Chitra Katha. Step 2 – Discuss the stories and don’t let the comic be the end. Discussion is the key. Stories are to be told, not read. Step 3 – don’t reach a conclusion, don’t justify, don’t apologize, don’t defend …..just try and understand why the story was told by our ancestors.

8. Finally, if  a parent’s goal is to enable their Hindu child to be an open-minded, well-adjusted global citizen who is deeply aware of their own religion but is able and willing to embrace learning from others as well, what must such a parent not do ?

Have confidence in Hinduism. This means that one does not have to put down other religions just to feel true to one’s own religion. Personally, I find the ‘cult of outrage’ that is spreading like an epidemic a problem. Everyone gets outraged when they feel their religion is being mocked or threatened. Instead of outrage, we need more understanding, love, inclusion and forgiveness. We must remind ourselves that while Ram kills Ravan, for a crime, he also acknowledges Ravan as a great scholar and teacher. Thus a holistic view is taken – parts that are condemned are condemned but not the whole.