Is A Harmonious World Possible ? : Part 1

"The yearning for a utopia is basically the yearning for harmony in the individual and in the society. The harmony has never existed; there has always been a chaos.

Society has been divided into different cultures, different religions, different nations – and all based on superstitions. None of the divisions are valid. But these divisions show that man is divided within himself: these are the projections of his own inner conflict. He is not 

one within, that's why he could not create one society, one humanity outside. The cause is not outside. The outside is only the reflection of the inner man. 

Man has developed from the animals.

This is profoundly supported by modern psychoanalysis, particularly Carl Gustav Jung's school, because in the collective unconscious of man there are memories which belong to animalhood. 

 If man is taken deep into hypnosis, first he enters the unconscious mind, which is just the repressed part of this life. If he is hypnotized even more deeply, then he enters into the collective unconscious, which has memories of being animals. People start screaming – in that stage they cannot speak a language. They start moaning or crying, but language is impossible; they can shout, but in an animal way. And in the collective unconscious state, if they are allowed to move or they are told to move, they move on all fours – they don't stand up. 

In the collective unconscious there are certainly remnants that suggest that they have been sometime in some animal body. And different people come from different animal bodies. That may be the cause of such a difference in individuals. And sometimes you can see a similarity – somebody behaves like a dog, somebody behaves like a fox, somebody behaves like a lion. 

And there is great support in folklore, in ancient parables like Aesop's Fables, or Panchtantra in India – which is the most ancient – in which all the stories are about animals, but are very significant for human beings and represent certain human types. 

And man still carries much of the animal's instinct – his anger, his hatred, his jealousy, his possessiveness, his cunningness. All that has been condemned in man seems to belong to a very deep-rooted unconscious. And the whole work of spiritual alchemy is how to get rid of the animal past. Without getting rid of the animal past, man will remain divided. The animal past and his humanity cannot exist as one, because humanity has just the opposite qualities. 

So all that man can do is become a hypocrite. 

As far as formal behavior is concerned, he follows the ideals of humanity – of love and of truth, of freedom, of non-possessiveness, compassion. But it remains only a very thin layer, and at any moment the hidden animal can come up; any accident can bring it up. And whether it comes up or not, the inner consciousness is divided. This divided consciousness has been creating the yearning and the question: How to become a harmonious whole as far as the individual is concerned? And the same is true about the whole society: How can we make the society a harmonious whole – where there is no war, no conflict – no classes, no divisions of color, caste, religion, nation? 

Because of people like Thomas Moore, who wrote the book Utopia, the name became synonymous with all idealistic goals – but they have not grasped the real problem. That's why it seems their idea of a utopia is never going to happen. If you think of society as becoming an ideal society, a paradise, it seems to be impossible: There are so many conflicts, and there seems to be no way to harmonize them. 

Every religion wants to conquer the whole world, not to be harmonized. 

Every nation wants to conquer the whole world, not to be harmonized. 

Every culture wants to spread all over the world and to destroy all other cultures, not to bring a harmony between them. 

So utopia became synonymous with something which is simply imaginary. And there are dreamers – the very word "utopia" also means "that which is never going to happen." But still man goes on thinking in those terms again and again. There seems to be some deep-rooted urge.... But his thinking is about the symptoms – that's why it seems to be never going to happen. He is not looking at the causes. The causes are individuals. 

Utopia is possible. A harmonious human society is possible, should be possible, because it will be the best opportunity for everyone to grow, the best opportunity for everyone to be himself. The richest possibilities will be available to everyone. So it seems that the way it is, society is absolutely stupid. The utopians are not dreamers, but your so-called realists who condemn utopians are stupid. But both are agreed on one point – that something has to be done in the society. 

Prince Kropotkin, Bakunin, and their followers would like all the governments to be dissolved – as if it is in their hands, as if you simply say so and the governments will dissolve. These are the anarchists, who are the best utopians. Reading them, it seems that whatever they are saying is significant. But they have no means to materialize it, and they have no idea how it is going to happen. And there is Karl Marx, Engels, and Lenin – the Marxists, the communists, and different schools of socialism, connected with different dreamers. Even George Bernard Shaw had his own idea of socialism, and he had a small group called the Fabian Society. He was propagating a kind of socialist world, totally different from the communist world that exists today. 

There are fascists who think that it is a question of more control and more government power; just the opposite pole of anarchists, who want no government – all the source of corruption is government. And there are people, the fascists, who want all power in the hands of dictators. They say that It is because of the democratic idea that the society is falling apart, because in democracy the lowest denominator becomes the ruler. He decides who is going to rule; and he is the most ignorant one, he has no understanding. The mob decides how the society should be. So according to the fascist, democracy is only mobocracy, it is not democracy – there is no democracy possible. 

According to the communists, the whole problem is simply the class division between the poor and the rich. They think that if all government power goes into the hands of the poor and they have a dictatorship of the proletariat – when all classes have disappeared, and the society has become equal – then soon there will be no need of any state. 

They are all concerned with the society. And that is where their failure lies. 

As I see it, utopia is not something that is not going to happen, it is something that is possible, but we should go to the causes, not to the symptoms. And the causes are in the individuals, not in the society. 

For example, in seventy years, the communist revolution in Soviet Russia was not able to dissolve the dictatorship. Lenin was thinking that ten or fifteen years at the most would be enough, because by that time we would have equalized everybody, distributed wealth equally – then there would be no need for a government. 

But after fifteen years they found that the moment you remove the enforced state, people are going to become again unequal. There will be again rich people and there will be again poor people, because there is something in people which makes them rich or poor. So you have to keep them in almost a concentration camp if you want them to remain equal. But this is a strange kind of equality because it destroys all freedom, all individuality. And the basic idea was that the individual will be given equal opportunity. His needs should be fulfilled equally. He will have everything equal to everybody else. He will share it. 

But the ultimate outcome is just the opposite. They have almost destroyed the individual to whom they were trying to give equality, and freedom, and everything good that should be given to individuals. The very individual is removed. They have become afraid of the individual; and the reason is that they are still not aware that however long the enforced state lasts – seventy or seven hundred years – it will not make any difference. The moment you remove control, there will be a few people who know how to be rich, and there will be a few people who know how to be poor. And they will simply start the whole thing again. 

In the beginning they tried... because Karl Marx's idea was that there should be no marriage in communism. And he was very factual about it: that marriage was born because of individual property. His logic was correct. There was a time when there was no marriage. People lived in tribes, and just as animals make love, people made love. The problem started only when a few people who were more cunning, more clever, more powerful, had managed some property. Now they wanted that their property, after their death, should go to their own children. It is a natural desire that if a person works his whole life and gathers property, land, or creates a kingdom, it should go to his children. In a subtle way, through the children, because they are his blood, he will be still ruling, he will be still possessing. It is a way to find some substitute for immortality, because the continuity will be there: "I will not be there, but my child will be there – who will represent me, who will be my blood and my bones and my marrow. And then his child will be there and there will be a continuity. So in a subtle sense, I will have immortality. I cannot live forever, so this is a substitute way." That's why marriage was created; otherwise it was easier for man not to have any marriage, because marriage was simply a responsibility – of children, of a wife. When the woman is pregnant, then you have to feed her.... And there was no need to take all that responsibility. The woman was taking the whole responsibility. But the man wanted some immortality, and that his property should be possessed by his own blood. And the woman wanted some protection – she was vulnerable. While she was pregnant, she could not work, she could not go hunting; she had to depend on somebody. So it was in the interest of both to have a contract that they would remain together, would not betray in any sense, because the whole thing was to keep the blood pure. 

So Marx's idea was that when communism comes, and property becomes collective, marriage becomes meaningless because its basic reason is removed – now you don't have any private property. Your son will not have anything as an inheritance. In fact, just as you cannot have private property, you cannot have a private woman; that too is property. And you cannot have a private son or daughter, because that too is private property. So with the disappearance of private property, marriage will disappear. So after the revolution, for two or three years, in Russia they tried it, but it was impossible. Private property had disappeared, but people were not ready to drop marriage. And even the government found that if marriage disappears, the whole responsibility falls on the government – of the children, of the woman.... 

So why take an unnecessary responsibility? – and it is not a small thing. It is better to let marriage continue. So they reversed the policy; they forgot all about Karl Marx, because just within three years they found that this was going to create difficulty, and people were not willing. People were not willing to drop private property either – it was forcibly taken away from them. Almost one million people were killed – for small private properties. Somebody had a small piece of land, a few acres, and because everything was going to be nationalized.Although the people were poor, still they wanted to cling to their property. At least they had something; and now even that was going to be taken out of their hands. They were hoping to get something more – that's why they had had the revolution, and fought for it. Now what they had was going to be taken out of their hands. It was going to become government property, it was going to be nationalized.And for small things – somebody may have had just a few hens, or a cow, and he was not willing... because that was all that he had, a small house and he was not willing for it to be nationalized. These poor people – one million people were killed to make the whole country aware that nationalization had to happen. Even if you had only a cow and you didn't give it to the government, you were finished. And the government was thinking that people would be willing to separate... but this is how the merely theoretical and logical people have always failed to understand man. They have never looked into his psychology. 

This was true, that marriage was created after private property came into being – marriage followed it. Logically, as private property is dissolved, marriage should disappear. But they don't understand the human mind. As property was taken away, people became even more possessive of each other because nothing was left. Their land has gone, their animals have gone, their houses have gone. Now they don't want to lose their wife or their husband or their children. This is too much. Logic is one thing... and unless we try to understand man more psychologically and less logically, we are always going to commit mistakes. Marx was proved wrong. 

When everything was taken away people were clinging to each other more, more than before, because now that was their only possession: a woman, a husband, children.... And it was such a gap in their life; their whole property had gone and now their wife was also to be nationalized. They could not conceive the idea because their mind and their tradition said, "That is prostitution." Their children had to be nationalized – they had not fought the revolution for this. 

 So finally the government had to reverse the policy; otherwise in their constitution.... In the first constitution they had declared that now there shall be no marriage; and the question of divorce did not arise. Just within three years they had to change it. 

And in Russia then marriage was stricter than anywhere else. Divorce was more difficult than anywhere else, because the government did not want unnecessary changes. That creates paperwork and more bureaucracy. So the government wants people to remain together, not to unnecessarily change partners. And divorce creates law cases about the children – who should have them, the father or mother; it is unnecessary. The government thinks of efficiency – less bureaucracy, less paperwork – and people are creating unnecessary paperwork, so it is very difficult to get a divorce. And as time passed, they found that there was no way to keep people equal without force. But what kind of a utopia is it which is kept by force? And because the communist party has all the force, a new kind of division has come into being, a new class of the bureaucrats: those who have power, and those who don't have any power. 

It is very difficult to become a member, to obtain membership of the communist party in Russia, because that is entering into the power elite. The communist party has made many other groups – first you have to be a member of those groups, and you have to be checked in every way. When they find that you are really reliable, absolutely reliable, trustworthy, then you may enter into the communist party. And the party is not increasing its membership because that means dividing power. The party wants to remain as small as possible so that the power is in a few hands. There is now a powerful class. For seventy years the same group were ruling the country, and the whole country was powerless. 

The people were never so powerless under a capitalist regime or under a feudal regime. Under the czars they were never so powerless. It was possible for a poor man, if he was intelligent enough, to become rich. Now it is not so easy. You may be intelligent, but it is not so easy to enter from the powerless class into the class which holds power. The distance between the two classes is far more than it was before. There is always mobility in a capitalist society because there are not only poor people and rich people, there is a big middle class, and the middle class is continuously moving. A few people of the middle class are moving into the super-rich, and more people are moving into the poor class. A few poor people are moving into the middle class; a few rich people are falling into the middle class, or may even fall into the poor class... there is mobility. In a communist society there is an absolutely static state. Classes are now completely cut off from each other. They were going to create a classless society, and they have created the strictest society with static classes. 

( to be continued )

source : Osho, Light on the Path, Talk #11

With love and passion,

Amreish Siman

The Mystery of Hanuman : Part 1

Once Shiva and Parvati, ever the adventurous lovers, decided to transform themselves into monkeys and indulge in amorous games in the dense Himalayan forests. During a climactic moment, the seed of Shiva found its mark and impregnated Parvati. Since they were in simian form it was but natural that the offspring born of such a union too would be a monkey. Not desiring to go against the laws of nature, Shiva directed the wind god Vayu to carry his semen from Parvati's womb, and deposit it into that of Anjana - a female monkey, who at that very moment was praying for a male child.

Another slightly variant version of this story in the Shiva Purana states that when Vishnu once disguised himself as the heavenly beauty Mohini, her charms so impressed Shiva that he could not restrain his seed. Vayu then carried the seed and deposited it into Anjana's womb. There was no question of Shiva's potent discharge resulting in an offspring less than extraordinary and the child conceived under such exceptional circumstances was bound to be especial, and so it was. The resulting bundle of joy was none other than Hanuman, one of the most celebrated and worshipped figures in Indian thought. 

Two exceptional traits further marked his birth. The first was that unlike ordinary children, Hanuman was born wearing a loincloth. This was an early pointer to his life-long pursuit of a celibate, almost ascetic lifestyle. The other significant occurrence was the presence of elaborate earrings adorning his ears. The latter has an interesting piece of legend explaining it:

At the time of Hanuman's birth, the undisputed leader of the monkey-world was Vaali, a strong and powerful ape. When Vaali came to know that Anjana was pregnant with a child who was bound to develop into a powerful rival, he decided to end matters in Anjana's womb itself. He created a missile using five metals: gold, silver, copper, iron and tin. When the unsuspecting mother was asleep, he directed the missile into her womb. A normal child may have succumbed to this dastardly attack, but not one born of Shiva's fiery seed. The missile as soon as it touched Hanuman's body melted, and transformed into a pair of earrings. Thus wearing the trophies of his first battle, fought while still in his mother's womb, Hanuman gloriously entered this world.

Indeed, having both Shiva and Vayu as his illustrious fathers, he was no ordinary child. Hanuman was restless, spirited, energetic and inquisitive. He was obviously endowed with awesome strength and the scriptures abound in tales expounding on his remarkable feats. Once for example he mistook the sun for a ripe fruit (monkeys are naturally lured by red ripe fruits), and rushed towards the sky in an attempt to grab it.On his way however he saw Rahu the dragon making his way to devour the sun and thus cause an eclipse. Mistaking him to be a worm, the restless Hanuman dashed towards Rahu and attempted to catch hold of him. Rushing for his life, Rahu sought shelter in the refuge of Indra, the lord of the skies. Indra picked up his deadly thunderbolt, mounted his white elephant named Airavata and made off in search of Hanuman, seeking to restrain his seeming impudence. The clouds rumbled and lightning thundered across the vast skies in an expression of Indra's wrath. But neither this scary scenario, nor the mightily armed Indra on his high mount, was sufficient enough to induce even a trace of fear in the heart of Hanuman. On the contrary, the spectacle only served to fuel his excitement and mistaking Airavata for a toy, he made a grab for the pachyderm, seized its trunk and leapt on its back. Taken aback by the child's spirited and playful defiance, Indra stuck at Hanuman with his thunderbolt, and the wound thus inflicted hurtled him speedily down to the earth. His father Vayu immediately sprung to his rescue and caught him in mid air.The sight of his beloved son lying helpless in his arms infuriated the wind-god. He drew in a mighty breath and sucked away all the air from the cosmos. "Let all those who have harmed Anjana's son choke to death," he thought out aloud. Predictably there was panic in the cosmos. Without air, life on every level was threatened. The gods, realizing their folly, went in unison to Vayu and asked for his forgiveness. To make amends they showered the following blessings and powers on the monkey child:

a). Brahma: "May you live as long as Brahma himself lives."

b). Vishnu: "May you live all your life as the greatest devotee of God."

c). Indra: "No weapon of any kind will wound or hit your body."

d). Agni: "Fire will never affect you."

e). Kala: "May death never court you."

f). All the Devas (gods): "None will ever equal you in strength and speed."

Brahma concluded the session by bestowing on Hanuman a power greater than even Vayu and Garuda, and endowed him with a speed faster than even the mightiest wind. Thus pacified, Vayu restored air into the cosmos and Hanuman was returned to his parents.There was one catch however. It was decreed that Hanuman would remain blissfully unaware of his own prowess, unless, during the course of a meritorious deed, his memory would remind him of his superhuman ability. It will be seen later how this apparently insignificant matter lays bare the symbolical significance of Hanuman.

Hanuman's Education

As he grew up, Hanuman sought to educate himself and for this purpose he chose Surya the sun god as his guru saying: "You see everything there is to see in the universe and you know everything there is to know. Please accept me as your pupil." Surya hesitated. "I don't have the time," he said. "During the day I ride across the sky, and at night I am too tired to do anything."

"Then teach me as you ride across the sky during the day. I will fly in front of your chariot, facing you from dawn to dusk." Impressed by Hanuman's zeal and determination, Surya accepted him as his pupil. Thus Hanuman flew before the chariot of the sun god, withstanding the awesome glare, until he became well versed in the four books of knowledge (the Vedas), the six systems of philosophies (darshanas), the sixty-four arts or kalas and the one hundred and eight occult mysteries of the Tantras.Having become a master of all that he set out to learn, it was now time for Hanuman to pay for his education (guru-dakshina). Surya asserted that watching the devoted pupil study was payment enough for him but when Hanuman insisted on giving something to express his gratitude, the sun god asked him to look after the welfare of his son Sugriva, who was the stepbrother of Vaali, the king of monkeys.

Before Vaali became the lord of apes, a simian named Riksha ruled over them. Once it so transpired that Riksha fell in an enchanted pool and turned into a woman. Both the sky-god Indra and the sun-god Surya fell in love with her and she bore each of them a son. Indra's son was her first born Vali while Sugriva her second offspring was the son of Surya. After bearing the sons, Riksha regained his male form.When Riksha died, in accordance with the law of the jungle, the monkeys fought each other for becoming the leader. Vaali successfully killed or maimed every other contender to the throne and became the undisputed ruler of the monkey world. As one who had successfully earned his dominant place among the apes, Vaali was not obliged to share the spoils of power with anyone, but being of a magnanimous nature he shared everything with his younger brother Sugriva. It was in these circumstances that Hanuman entered the companionship of Sugriva who later became the king of monkeys himself. It was under Sugriva that the massive army of monkeys helped Lord Rama reclaim his wife who had been abducted by the demon Ravana

Hanuman The Selfless

A pair of lovebirds, reveling in their natural freedom, was soaring the boundless skies. Fate however had scripted a cruel ending to their mating. A hunter's arrow found its mark and the devoted female lost her male. She did not however escape from the scene but rather lingered on, circling over the lifeless form of her mate. Witnessing this poignant episode inspired the accomplished sage Valmiki to poetry and what came out of his heart was the Ramayana, one of the greatest epics the earth has had the good fortune to inherit. Indeed, Valmiki's poem became renowned in the three worlds as it struck a chord in every heart that heard it.

One day Valmiki came to know that the great Hanuman too had penned the adventures of Rama, engraving the story with his nails on rocks. A curious Valmiki traveled to the Himalayas where Hanuman was residing to partake this version. When Hanuman read out his narration, Valmiki was overwhelmed by its sheer power and poetic caliber. It was truly an inspired piece. Valmiki felt both joy and sorrow. Joy because he had had the chance to hear an exceptionally beautiful poem, and sad because it obviously overshadowed his own work.When Hanuman saw the unhappiness his work had caused Valmiki he smashed he engraved rocks destroying his creation forever. Such was Hanuman's selflessness. For him, narrating the tales of Rama' s adventures was a means to re-experience Rama, not a ticket to the hall of fame.

Hanuman's name too illustrates his self-effacing character, being made up of 'hanan' (annihilation) and 'man' (mind), thus indicating one who has conquered his ego.

Hanuman and Yoga

If yoga is the ability to control one's mind then Hanuman is the quintessential yogi having a perfect mastery over his senses, achieved through a disciplined lifestyle tempered by the twin streams of celibacy and selfless devotion (bhakti). In fact, Hanuman is the ideal Brahmachari (one who follows the path of Brahma), if ever there was one.

He is also a perfect karma yogi since he performs his actions with detachment, acting as an instrument of destiny rather than being impelled by any selfish motive.

Hanuman - The First to Teach Pranayama and the Inventor of the Surya Namaskaram

Pranayama is the ability to control one's breath so that the inhalation and exhalation of air is rhythmic. Vayu, the god of air and wind, first taught pranayama to his son Hanuman, who in turn taught it to mankind.

The Surya Namaskaram (salutation to the Sun) too, was devised by Hanuman as a greeting for his teacher Surya.

Hanuman and Sorcery

The villain of the epic Ramayana was the mighty demon Ravana. When he carried away Sita, her aggrieved husband Rama, accompanied by Hanuman and a massive army of monkeys laid siege on Lanka, the capital of Ravana's empire. As the battle progressed, the demon lost all his brothers and sons and it became clear that he was headed towards defeat. Finally, he sent for his only surviving son Mahiravana, a powerful sorcerer who ruled over the underworld (patala loka). Mahiravana was a great devotee of Goddess Kali from whom he had obtained vital occult secrets. Initially Mahiravana did not wish to join the fight against Rama since he felt the latter's cause to be just. But understanding his weakness for ritual magick Ravana addressed him thus: "Think of the powers the Goddess Kali will grant you when you offer to her the heads of two handsome and virile youths like Rama and Lakshmana." Needless to say, Mahiravana agreed.

The great sorcerer Mahiravana managed to kidnap both Rama and his brother Lakshmana while they were sleeping. He left behind, in place of their bed, a dark trail stretching deep into the bowels of the earth. Hanuman immediately dived into the tunnel and made his way to patala, the subterranean kingdom of Mahiravana. There he found the two brothers tied to a post, their bodies anointed with mustard oil and bedecked with marigold flowers, ready to be sacrificed. Near them, Mahiravana was sharpening the sacrificial blade and chanting hymns to invoke the goddess.

Hanuman taking the form of a bee whispered into Rama's ear, "When Mahiravana asks you to place your neck on the sacrificial block, inform him that being of royal lineage you have never learned to bow your head. Tell him to show you how." Mahiravana fell for the trap. No sooner had he bowed his head in the ritually prescribed manner than Hanuman regained his form, seized the blade, and decapitated the sorcerer. Thus did Hanuman turn the tables and sacrificed the demon himself to Mother Goddess Kali. Impressed, she made Hanuman her doorkeeper and indeed many temples of the goddess are seen to have a monkey guarding their doorways. Further, to this day, Hanuman is invoked in any fight against sorcery, and amulets and charms depicting him are therefore extremely popular among devotees. 

Hanuman and Astrology

Mahiravana's death filled Ravana's heart with fear. He consulted the court astrologers who studied his horoscope and decreed that the alignment of celestial bodies was not in his favor. Now, Indian astrology is governed by nine planets, known as the navagrahas. Ravana thought that by changing the alignment of these heavenly bodies he would be able to alter his destiny. Mounting his flying chariot he rose to the skies, captured the nine planets, and herded them to his capital in chains. He then began a series of rituals which if successful would force the planets to realign themselves in his favor. When Hanuman came to know of this ritual, he assembled and led a band of daredevil monkeys to Ravana's sacrificial hall, intending to disrupt the proceedings. They found the villain sitting beside a fire altar with his eyes shut in profound meditation, mouthing mantras. The group of simians let out a loud war cry and rushed into the hall. They snuffed out the sacred fire, kicked off the ceremonial utensils and wiped off the occult diagrams (yantras) painted on the floor. Unfortunately none of this roused Ravana from his deep trance and he continued chanting the holy formulas. Hanuman realized that Ravana would have to be stopped at any cost, otherwise the villain would succeed in changing the course of destiny.Towards this end he devised a mischievous plan, and ordered his lieutenants to enter the female chambers and scare away Ravana's many wives. The monkeys did as instructed and attacked Ravana's queens and concubines, pulling their hair, scratching their faces and tearing away their clothes. But it was all to no avail; the immovable Ravana did not stir.

At last the monkeys confronted Mandodari, the chief wife of Ravana. They bared their teeth, beat their chests and began to grunt menacingly. Terrified, Mandodari lamented, "Woe is me. My husband meditates while monkeys threaten my chastity." Her words ashamed Ravana to open his eyes and rush to her defence. Thus having successfully distracted Ravana, Hanuman ran back to the sacrificial hall and liberated the nine planets held captive there. For having successfully aborted Ravana's misplaced attempts to subvert fate, Hanuman won the eternal gratitude of the grahas and is thus believed to exercise considerable power over them. Correspondingly, he is worshipped by his devotees whenever they perceive their troubles to be a result of the unfavorable configuration of celestial bodies. Indeed, Hanuman is often shown trampling under his feet a woman who is said to represent Panvati, a personification of baneful astrological influences. 

Another interesting legend deals specifically with the planet Saturn (Shani). Perceived to be an unfavorable influence, it is believed that Saturn visits each individual at least once in his/her lifetime for a period of seven-and-a-half years. As fate would have it, Saturn descended on Hanuman when he was busy building a bridge over the ocean to help Rama and his army cross over to Lanka. Hanuman requested the planet to postpone his visit till he had successfully assisted Rama in regaining Sita. But Saturn was adamant and Hanuman had to bow against the will of nature. He suggested that Saturn sit on his (Hanuman's) head as his hands were engaged in serving Rama and his legs were too lowly for Saturn.Saturn happily settled on Hanuman's head and the mighty monkey continued with his work, piling heavy boulders and stones on his head in an apparently casual manner and carrying them to the construction site. After a while Saturn found it impossible to bear the load of the heaped boulders any longer and wished to climb down. Hanuman insisted that he complete his mandatory seven-and-a-half years but Saturn pleaded for release saying that the seven-and-a-half minutes he stayed on Hanuman's head felt like seven-and-a-half years anyway. Thus speaking Saturn took leave of Hanuman and since then worshippers of this monkey god rest assured that the unavoidable ill effects of Saturn's sade-sati (seven-and-a-half year's stay) can be whittled down by a true devotion to Hanuman.

Hanuman and the Mother Goddess

We have seen above how Hanuman serves as a favorite of the Mother Goddess. But the attribute of Hanuman, which impresses the goddess most, is his brahmacharya. Indeed Hanuman never threatens the world with his virility unlike say Shiva whose virility often has to be restrained by goddess Kali. Accordingly, Hanuman gains her unparalleled appreciation.

source : http://www.exoticindiaart.com

With love and passion,

Amreish Siman

Review : True Grit ( 2010 )

Film : True Grit (2010)

Writers/Directors : Joel & Ethan Coen

Producers : Joel & Ethan Coen,Steven Spielberg ( executive producer )

Distributor : Paramount Pictures

D.O.P : Roger Deakins

Cast : Jeff Bridges,Hailee Steinfeld,Matt Damon,Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper

Language : English

Running time : 110 minutes

Rating : 18

I'm not really a fan of westerns but my old man is one,like most men his generation.In fact,he was responsible of introducing me to this famed genre of films,especially in his era ( circa 60's & 70's) when tough men like John Wayne,Clint Eastwood(still does),Charles Bronson and the the rest of 'em cowboys saw their heyday.They were held up so greatly by my father's generation of movie-goers back then and their legacy continues to grow over time.There is something about these men that kept an entire generation of men in complete awe and adoration watching them in action.I didn't understand what was the fuss all about seeing a man in a hat on a horse shooting another one half-drunk but i do know now,or at least i think i can reason it out.Cowboys,in my opinion,are the perfect personification of the exaggerated machismo,with an overdose of masculinity(Brokeback aside:p) and male chauvinism portrayed to the hilt by those stately male actors mentioned above,all to the delight of men worldwide.They identified with these characters,to be more blunt,it satiated their male ego,the 'lion' in them felt at home.More than comic book superheroes whom urban men with a more pronounced sensitive side mostly identifies with,the rural and suburban working class men,who by large,made up the majority mostly had a fantasy to live free and die hard,guns and whiskey on their fingertips riding across the country gallantly on a majestic stallion.I mean these guys were practically invisible and since emotional vulnerability amongst men was widely considered a glaring weakness,these men stood really tall in the eyes of their kinsmen once.

Most westerns had a standard plot,much like Bollywood and Kollywood films,not much difference from one another,they have what i call SPS (Standard Plot Structure).Its either a manhunt,a tale of vendetta,a rescue mission or treasure hunts.I can't really typecast because as i mentioned,i'm not a fan of westerns although one particular film is actually made it to all-time favorite list,Eastwood's timeless masterpiece,Unforgiven(1992).That film challenged the entire western clockwork,the invisible macho men act altogether because it portrayed the rarely depicted tale of redemption.The hero here is a melancholic lonely has-been rider,who spends his days in deep remorse over his violent past,brilliantly portrayed by Eastwood himself,together with Morgan Freeman and the scene-stealing Gene Hackman,the film also boasted gorgeous,lush visuals with an equally sweeping score.It was a 'rich' film in every sense of the word and was deservedly honored,both critically and commercially.One of those rare films which stood and will always stand the test of time,primarily,i'd say due to the theme of redemption.

Having said all that,i went for this film mainly because of the Coens,a fan of them i am,ever since Fargo(1996) and the irresistible combo of Bridges,Damon and Brolin,plus the mind-numbing 10 nods from the Academy(went home empty-handed though).And mind you,this is actually a remake,the original,which in turn was adapted from a novel by the same name starred,well,since it was made in 1969,the 'man' himself,John Wayne.I didn't have iota of awareness of the existence of the original one until this came out and i was pretty surprised because these guys are widely acknowledged as genius innovators.Why would they do a remake then?Their films have a distinct style and over the years,they've perfected their craft and most recently reached the pinnacle of their careers( showered with Oscars) with the brilliant and innovative modern western,No Country For Old Men,also starring Brolin.

With much curiosity and excitement,i sat through the film and walked out a satisfied man.Two reasons.One,the Coens maintained their mettle.Two,it gave me every reason why i must never ever give up filmaking.Never did i ever thought a western could be this entertaining !All the credits goes to the Coens of course,well,almost because it would have never quite worked the way it did without the delightful turn from Jeff Bridges,playing a retired,drunk and slothful U.S Marshall with gleeful idiosyncrasy and the truly praiseworthy(and well-rewarded) performance of the young lead,played by 14-year old newcomer Hailee Steinfeld,whose hyper-wit and guts reminded me of then-young Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver (1976) and Anna Paquin in The Piano (1993).Complimenting both performances wonderfully was a nuanced and fine turn from Matt Damon in the role of a Ranger.With a relatively simple plot line of a headstrong and iron-willed young girl seeking revenge over her father's murder,the Coens weaved an immensely likable screenplay with brilliantly written dialogues delivered flawlessly by the cast,really,never have i seen a western's lines written as entertainingly as this,keep this in mind and be your own judge when you watch it,chances are high that you'll be smiling !

Despite being a western centered on revenge,the film's mood was generally light,this is a specialty of the brothers,toasting an otherwise melancholic and heavy subject with their trademark dark humour,like what they did with Fargo and The Hudsucker Proxy(1994).And the treatment worked wonders,it injected a whole new twist to whole genre itself.The technical aspects were never neglected as it effectively served to elevate the overall output to be more wholesome with awesome cinematography,sound and costume in check.Having said all that,this film may not be the best from the Coens,but it surely is among their finest five.Why did i say watching this film further fueled my dreams?Because it exemplifies that with an innovative mind and finely tuned senses,one is capable of marrying film genres and amalgamating crucial elements resulting in a great piece of cinema which works like magic on screen.In the hands of an innovator,questions of authenticity will never arise,like this one.Remember Titanic?There were various films before Jim Cameron's version but mention it now,only one film springs to mind,his.Similarly,i have a feeling this 'remake' will eventually upstage its 'original' in the passage of time.A little reflection before i conclude,what does it take to possess an authentic grit?Fearlessness?Maybe.Soaring will?Perhaps.For me,its the ability to wither the hampering waves of a sorry past and march valiantly against all odds handsomely to the pinnacle of sweet smelling success.What's yours?Go find out what being tough is all about,without too much weight on the head !

Rating : A

Reviewed by

Amreish Siman