Yaksha: Who is really a helpful companion?
Yudhisthira: Steady intelligence is a very good friend and can save one from all dangers.
Yaksha: How can one acquire something very great?
Yudhisthira: Everything desirable can be attained by the performance of austerity.
Yaksha: What is amrita (nectar)?
Yudhisthira: Milk is just like nectar.
Yaksha: What is the friend bestowed upon man by the demigods?
Yudhisthira: Wife is such a friend.
Yaksha: What is the best of happiness?
Yudhisthira: True happiness comes as a result of contentment.
Yaksha: Why does one give in charity to brahmanas, artists, servants and kings?
Yudhisthira: For religious merit, prestige, maintenance and protection, respectively.
Yaksha: Why does one forsake friends?
Yudhisthira: Lust and greed drives one to forsake friends.
Yaksha: What is the only food?
Yudhisthira: The cow is the only food, for the milk that she produces is used to make ghee, which is used to perform sacrifices, pleased by which the demigods give rain, which causes the grains to grow. Therefore it should be understood that the cow is the root cause of all kinds of food.
Yaksha: What is the king of knowledge?
Yudhisthira: Knowledge pertaining to the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the king of all kinds of knowledge.
Yaksha: What is ignorance?
Yudhisthira: Not knowing one's constitutional duty.
Yaksha: What is the best bath?
Yudhisthira: That which cleanses the mind of all impurities.
Yaksha: What is real charity?
Yudhisthira: Real charity is protecting one from the onslaughts of material nature.
Yaksha: Since dharma (virtue), artha (profit) and kama (desire) are opposed to each other, how can they co-exist harmoniously?
Yudhisthira: These three become congenial to one another when one has a virtuous wife.
Yaksha: Who is condemned to everlasting hell?
Yudhisthira: When one promise a brahmana charity but upon his arrival refuses to give him charity.
Yaksha: What make one a brahmana, birth, learning or behavior?
Yudhisthira: It is behavior alone that make a person a brahmana. Even if one who is expert in the four Vedas, born of brahmana parents, but whose behavior is not proper should be considered a sudra.
Yaksha: Who is pleasing?
Yudhisthira: A person who speaks in a pleasing manner.
Finally the Yaksha asked Yudhisthira four questions of great significance;
Yaksha: Who is truly happy?
Yudhisthira: One who cooks his own food (is not dependant on anyone), is not a debtor (does not spend more than he can afford), does not have to leave home to make in order to earn his livelihood (does not over endeavor for material things) is truly happy.
Yaksha: What is the most wonderful thing?
Yudhisthira: The most amazing thing is that even though every day one sees countless living entities dying, he still acts and thinks as if he will live forever.
Yaksha: What is the real path to follow in this life?
Yudhisthira: The best path is to follow in the footsteps of the pure devotees, for they are the actual Mahajanas (Great Persons) whose hearts are the sitting places of the real truths regarding religion.
Yaksha: What is news? (that is What is real situation in the material world?)
Yudhisthira: The material world is like a frying pan. The Sun is the fire, the day and nights are the fuel. The passing seasons are the stirring ladle and time is cook. All living entities are being thus fried in this pan. This is the real news of what is happening in the material world which is a miserable place full of ignorance.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Yaksha Prashna -1
What is weightier than earth? Mother
What is taller than the sky? Father
What is faster than the wind? Mind
What is more numerous than grass? Thoughts
By renouncing what does one become loved? Pride
By renouncing what is one free of sorrow? Anger
By renouncing what does one become wealthy? Desire
By renouncing what does one become happy? Greed
Who is the friend of a traveller? A companion
Who is the friend of a householder? A spouse
Who is the friend of the sick? A doctor
Who is the friend of the dying? His charity
What treasure is the best? Skill
What wealth is the best? Education
What is the greatest gain? Health
And the greatest happiness? Contentment
What is a man's self? His progeny
Who is his God-given friend? His wife
What supports his life? Rain
What is his principal duty? Charity
What makes the sun rise? Brahma
Who moves around him? Gods
What causes the sun to set? Dharma
How is he held firm? Truth
What is taller than the sky? Father
What is faster than the wind? Mind
What is more numerous than grass? Thoughts
By renouncing what does one become loved? Pride
By renouncing what is one free of sorrow? Anger
By renouncing what does one become wealthy? Desire
By renouncing what does one become happy? Greed
Who is the friend of a traveller? A companion
Who is the friend of a householder? A spouse
Who is the friend of the sick? A doctor
Who is the friend of the dying? His charity
What treasure is the best? Skill
What wealth is the best? Education
What is the greatest gain? Health
And the greatest happiness? Contentment
What is a man's self? His progeny
Who is his God-given friend? His wife
What supports his life? Rain
What is his principal duty? Charity
What makes the sun rise? Brahma
Who moves around him? Gods
What causes the sun to set? Dharma
How is he held firm? Truth
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Looking deep into Indian Cinema - 1
Cinema is like an art that inspires you to look at the deeper aspects of life and the world around you. Bollywood Films are merely treated as entertainment dose, served to people on Fridays. People enjoy the fast food and then forgot about it completely. And Response to an accusation of unoriginality or escapism and false depiction of society is a ridiculous justification by our leading filmmakers. They are making films for the enetertainment of masses irrespective of any responsibility towards anything. Anuj Malhotra answers our basic question about bollywood: Who are we making films for then? Aren’t these films hits? If they are not made for anyone, how are they so successful?
He narrates a story - In a city by the river, there was a factory – run entirely by people who were handicapped. They run machines incessantly throughout the day – never pausing for a break until the close of day, which was when they lined the gate of the factory – tired, exhausted to the extent that they could not see – and waiting for someone to lead them to their homes. At the precise moment, the owner of a liquor shop by the roadside would arrive at the scene, and with the false promising of helping them reach their homes, lead them to his liquor shop. Tired, they would fall prey to the temptations of the beverage, and having spent their entire daily earning on the liquor, would tumble outside the bar on the road, or be pushed outside by the owner; never making it till their homes. Ofcourse, some one could have led the tired, blind men to their homes as well.
One may ask here- The liquor joint was successful- A major hit. But didn’t it involve immoral exploitation of a group of people who did not have the luxury of the possession of better judgement?
When a person’s blind, and open to such exploitation, do you exploit them, or do you take them home? The Bollywood chooses the former. The commercial success of a few films should not mask the reality of the situation – 9 out of the 120 or so films released last year were hits. Bollywood’s ignorance of the world we live in, or its discussion, is not something beyond notice for the audience. [Source]
Truly, the average person doesn't care about editing or cinematography. They want only entertainment as kid, uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. In sports, people are proud of their technical knowledge of game and respect commentators who are aware of each aspect of game. Then why not in movies. In cinema, intelligence is vilified and film education so undervalued that those who teach about it considered arrogant. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.
Cinema and popularity
Roger Ebert put in effective way: [Source]
"What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was remarkably gifted."
He further quotes Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder, It pays better.
He narrates a story - In a city by the river, there was a factory – run entirely by people who were handicapped. They run machines incessantly throughout the day – never pausing for a break until the close of day, which was when they lined the gate of the factory – tired, exhausted to the extent that they could not see – and waiting for someone to lead them to their homes. At the precise moment, the owner of a liquor shop by the roadside would arrive at the scene, and with the false promising of helping them reach their homes, lead them to his liquor shop. Tired, they would fall prey to the temptations of the beverage, and having spent their entire daily earning on the liquor, would tumble outside the bar on the road, or be pushed outside by the owner; never making it till their homes. Ofcourse, some one could have led the tired, blind men to their homes as well.
One may ask here- The liquor joint was successful- A major hit. But didn’t it involve immoral exploitation of a group of people who did not have the luxury of the possession of better judgement?
When a person’s blind, and open to such exploitation, do you exploit them, or do you take them home? The Bollywood chooses the former. The commercial success of a few films should not mask the reality of the situation – 9 out of the 120 or so films released last year were hits. Bollywood’s ignorance of the world we live in, or its discussion, is not something beyond notice for the audience. [Source]
Truly, the average person doesn't care about editing or cinematography. They want only entertainment as kid, uncritical or thoughtlessly accepting. In sports, people are proud of their technical knowledge of game and respect commentators who are aware of each aspect of game. Then why not in movies. In cinema, intelligence is vilified and film education so undervalued that those who teach about it considered arrogant. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle.
Cinema and popularity
Roger Ebert put in effective way: [Source]
"What I believe is that all clear-minded people should remain two things throughout their lifetimes: Curious and teachable. If someone I respect tells me I must take a closer look at the films of Abbas Kiarostami, I will take that seriously. If someone says the kung-fu movies of the 1970s, which I used for our old Dog of the Week segments, deserve serious consideration, I will listen. I will try to do what Pauline Kael said she did: Take everything you are, and all the films you've seen, into the theater. See the film, and decide if anything has changed. The older you are and the more films you've seen, the more you take into the theater. When I had been a film critic for ten minutes, I treated Doris Day as a target for cheap shots. I have learned enough to say today that the woman was remarkably gifted."
He further quotes Yeats that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. No wonder, It pays better.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Enter the devil : Bt- Brinjal
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on Wednesday approved the environmental release of Bt brinjal. Several studies on Bt crops in particular and GM crops in general show that there are many potential health hazards in foods bio-engineered in this manner. [Briefing Paper]
Dr Pushpa Bhargava, a renowned molecular biologist and founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB)was instructed by the Supreme Court of India to look into the method of approval of GM crops into India, is asking. Dr Bhargava examined the current procedures adopted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and was shocked to note that this Committee was approving applications based upon trials conducted by the seed companies. He has called for a moratorium on the entire approval process. [Source]
Kamalakar Duvvuru voices out following fact for wake up call.
Subsidies given by Developed Nations:
"Despite preaching the “benefits” of “free” trade in agriculture, US, EU, Japan and other industrialized countries continue to skew their farm subsidies so heavily in favor of their biggest agricultural producers. From 1995 to 2006 USDA provided $177 billion in subsidy to its farmers. Top 10% of the agricultural producers received 74% of the total amount. During this period US government provided nearly one billion dollar subsidy to just three American rice growers. Rice is staple food for nearly 3.7 billion Asians. Nobel Prize winner in economics Joseph Stiglitz described the United States Farm Bill as “the perfect illustration of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy on trade liberalization.”
In 2004 EU paid its biggest 2,460 farmers on average $667,000 each, or $1.7 billion in total. In Germany, 14% of the biggest farm producers got 65% of all payments; in France, 29% of the biggest farm producers got 72% of all payments; in UK, 31% of the biggest farm producers got 84% of all payments; and in Italy, 1.6% of the biggest farm producers got 34% of all payments.
These figures make a mockery of claims that the US Farm Bill and EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are geared toward small farmers and rural development. This huge subsidy allows food cartel to sell rice, wheat and other staple foods at very low price to dominate global food market. This displaces local production of basic foodstuffs and farming livelihoods in developing countries. “These subsidies continue to promote over-production and dumping, hurting poor farmers in developing countries,” said Luis Morago, Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair spokesperson. He further said, “Europe’s common agricultural policy and the US Farm Bill continue to ignore small farmers at home and cripple poorer farmers abroad.”
Big MNC's playing dirty:
Monsanto owns the patent on Bt cotton. In 2005 approximately 1.26 million hectares, and in 2006 nearly 3.28 million hectares of land in India was under Bt cotton cultivation. Farmers who buy GM seeds enter into a licensing agreement with Monsanto for the use of that particular gene and the company prescribed fertilizer. They are forbidden from saving seeds for the next season. They must buy new seed from the company each season. This denies farmers’ right to save seed. The implications of this are huge for poor farmers. Saved seed is the one resource that the poor farmers depend upon to carry them through the year. Denial of this right will greatly impact them economically. For they have to pay more each season to buy new seed. Monsanto is now charging 1850 Indian rupees per 450 gram pack of Bt cotton seeds as compared to 38 Indian rupees charged in China for the same quantity. In India, the price for non-Bt cotton variety is at 450 to 500 Indian rupees. India has recently allowed field trials of GM varieties of rice, brinjal and groundnut.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs):
Introduction of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) has become an increasingly important source of competitive advantage and accumulation in the production and trade of agricultural goods. This has resulted in the increasing concentration of control over seeds and other resources in a few transnational companies. The IPR owners, usually transnational companies, can prevent others from producing or selling the seeds or plant varieties over which they own the rights. They can set prices or royalties on the seeds, and terms and conditions for use of the seeds and inputs. This not only denies the right of farmers to save seeds for the next season, but also forces them to depend on transnational companies for seeds and inputs. With raising prices of seeds and inputs, coupled with prevention of saving seeds, small scale farmers become vulnerable whether there is bumper crop, or failure or low yield. In times of bumper crop, they get lower price for their produce, and in times of failure or low yield they incur loss. But the farming costs keep rising.
Because of their sheer size and assurance of huge financial returns due to IPRs, transnational companies are increasingly engaged in agro-biotechnology research. As the goal of companies is profit, their research and production efforts tend to focus on only a few crops, thus weakening biodiversity and sustainability caused by expanding monoculture in food production. The consequences are terrible on “minor crops”, which are commercially not profitable for the companies.
With the trends towards strengthening IPR systems worldwide (and in India), there is an increasing ability of agribusiness companies privatizing genetic resources and agricultural knowledge. The tendency will be to focus on research on lucrative developing country markets, rather than developing country needs. Therefore, IPRs are not designed to respond to socio-economic concerns such as food security of developing countries, or to protect the livelihoods of landless and small scale farmers, but to promote the greed of agribusiness companies at the expense of landless and small scale famers in these countries. Thus, IPRs can impede progress towards sustainability, food security and distributive justice.
Dr Pushpa Bhargava, a renowned molecular biologist and founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB)was instructed by the Supreme Court of India to look into the method of approval of GM crops into India, is asking. Dr Bhargava examined the current procedures adopted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and was shocked to note that this Committee was approving applications based upon trials conducted by the seed companies. He has called for a moratorium on the entire approval process. [Source]
Kamalakar Duvvuru voices out following fact for wake up call.
Subsidies given by Developed Nations:
"Despite preaching the “benefits” of “free” trade in agriculture, US, EU, Japan and other industrialized countries continue to skew their farm subsidies so heavily in favor of their biggest agricultural producers. From 1995 to 2006 USDA provided $177 billion in subsidy to its farmers. Top 10% of the agricultural producers received 74% of the total amount. During this period US government provided nearly one billion dollar subsidy to just three American rice growers. Rice is staple food for nearly 3.7 billion Asians. Nobel Prize winner in economics Joseph Stiglitz described the United States Farm Bill as “the perfect illustration of the Bush administration’s hypocrisy on trade liberalization.”
In 2004 EU paid its biggest 2,460 farmers on average $667,000 each, or $1.7 billion in total. In Germany, 14% of the biggest farm producers got 65% of all payments; in France, 29% of the biggest farm producers got 72% of all payments; in UK, 31% of the biggest farm producers got 84% of all payments; and in Italy, 1.6% of the biggest farm producers got 34% of all payments.
These figures make a mockery of claims that the US Farm Bill and EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are geared toward small farmers and rural development. This huge subsidy allows food cartel to sell rice, wheat and other staple foods at very low price to dominate global food market. This displaces local production of basic foodstuffs and farming livelihoods in developing countries. “These subsidies continue to promote over-production and dumping, hurting poor farmers in developing countries,” said Luis Morago, Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair spokesperson. He further said, “Europe’s common agricultural policy and the US Farm Bill continue to ignore small farmers at home and cripple poorer farmers abroad.”
Big MNC's playing dirty:
Monsanto owns the patent on Bt cotton. In 2005 approximately 1.26 million hectares, and in 2006 nearly 3.28 million hectares of land in India was under Bt cotton cultivation. Farmers who buy GM seeds enter into a licensing agreement with Monsanto for the use of that particular gene and the company prescribed fertilizer. They are forbidden from saving seeds for the next season. They must buy new seed from the company each season. This denies farmers’ right to save seed. The implications of this are huge for poor farmers. Saved seed is the one resource that the poor farmers depend upon to carry them through the year. Denial of this right will greatly impact them economically. For they have to pay more each season to buy new seed. Monsanto is now charging 1850 Indian rupees per 450 gram pack of Bt cotton seeds as compared to 38 Indian rupees charged in China for the same quantity. In India, the price for non-Bt cotton variety is at 450 to 500 Indian rupees. India has recently allowed field trials of GM varieties of rice, brinjal and groundnut.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs):
Introduction of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) has become an increasingly important source of competitive advantage and accumulation in the production and trade of agricultural goods. This has resulted in the increasing concentration of control over seeds and other resources in a few transnational companies. The IPR owners, usually transnational companies, can prevent others from producing or selling the seeds or plant varieties over which they own the rights. They can set prices or royalties on the seeds, and terms and conditions for use of the seeds and inputs. This not only denies the right of farmers to save seeds for the next season, but also forces them to depend on transnational companies for seeds and inputs. With raising prices of seeds and inputs, coupled with prevention of saving seeds, small scale farmers become vulnerable whether there is bumper crop, or failure or low yield. In times of bumper crop, they get lower price for their produce, and in times of failure or low yield they incur loss. But the farming costs keep rising.
Because of their sheer size and assurance of huge financial returns due to IPRs, transnational companies are increasingly engaged in agro-biotechnology research. As the goal of companies is profit, their research and production efforts tend to focus on only a few crops, thus weakening biodiversity and sustainability caused by expanding monoculture in food production. The consequences are terrible on “minor crops”, which are commercially not profitable for the companies.
With the trends towards strengthening IPR systems worldwide (and in India), there is an increasing ability of agribusiness companies privatizing genetic resources and agricultural knowledge. The tendency will be to focus on research on lucrative developing country markets, rather than developing country needs. Therefore, IPRs are not designed to respond to socio-economic concerns such as food security of developing countries, or to protect the livelihoods of landless and small scale farmers, but to promote the greed of agribusiness companies at the expense of landless and small scale famers in these countries. Thus, IPRs can impede progress towards sustainability, food security and distributive justice.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Vichaar Shoonya + 2
On the profound truth which is a hybrid of reality and mythology, There's no one truth & On telling stories ;
What Have We Done to Democracy? - by Arundhati Roy
Does the Internet spread democracy? - by Evgeny Morozov
India’s Maoist dilemma: the case of Lalgarh by Aaradhana Jhunjhunwala
A Former Street Kid Sizes Up 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Rashmi Bansal's Talk at IIT-Kgp covered by a blogger.
Thought of the Day:
“You see with your eyes, you hear with the sense of your hearing, you feel with your sense of touch, and all these senses are nothing but functions of your mind which is nothing but a thought which in turn is just an idea… so if you close your eyes and go to sleep the world ceases to exist and when you wake up it comes back in different shapes and forms to every living being on the earth.” – Arthur Schopenhauer (The World As Will and Idea)
What Have We Done to Democracy? - by Arundhati Roy
Does the Internet spread democracy? - by Evgeny Morozov
India’s Maoist dilemma: the case of Lalgarh by Aaradhana Jhunjhunwala
A Former Street Kid Sizes Up 'Slumdog Millionaire'
Rashmi Bansal's Talk at IIT-Kgp covered by a blogger.
Thought of the Day:
“You see with your eyes, you hear with the sense of your hearing, you feel with your sense of touch, and all these senses are nothing but functions of your mind which is nothing but a thought which in turn is just an idea… so if you close your eyes and go to sleep the world ceases to exist and when you wake up it comes back in different shapes and forms to every living being on the earth.” – Arthur Schopenhauer (The World As Will and Idea)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)