Daru pine se kya khushi milti hai? The pleasure of drinking alcohol is also a sentimental imagination. In fact, it is worse than a sentimental imagination; it is a self-defeating imagination. It makes people behave disgracefully like lunatics. It also leads to drunken driving, ending in numerous accidents, many fatal. And it triggers so many health problems, even fatal diseases.
By comparison, the religious rituals, at the very least, don’t harm. They provide a higher happiness that frees people from the desires for pleasures like meat-eating and intoxication that are harmful to others and harmful to themselves. How can this happiness be considered imaginary when its effects are real: freedom from addictive and destructive desires, freedom that is otherwise extremely difficult to gain? And these effects are not just real, but repeatable. Many surveys have demonstrated that religious people are healthier and happier than their nonreligious peers.(In the Handbook of Religion and Health, published by Oxford University Press, Harold G. Koenig, MD; Michael E. McCullough, PhD; and the late David B. Larson,MD, carefully review no fewer than two thou- sand published experiments that consistently demonstrate the positive correlation between religious belief on one hand and physical and mental health on the other hand)
For argument’s sake, let’s assume that this pleasure is just the sentimental imagination of people with blind faith in their tradition. Then why is this same pleasure sought by millions of people all over the world – people who don’t even know about this tradition, leave alone having blind faith in it? Kirtan is becoming increasingly popular in the West as a means of relieving stress, gaining peace of mind and promoting spiritual growth. Thousands of people from various parts of the world become so inspired by the joy that they find in kirtan that they come to India as spiritual tourists to find out more about the culture that gave birth to kirtans. Many such seekers are often seen in holy places like Haridwar, Varanasi and Vrindavan. If the happiness from kirtan were just a sentimental imagination due to blind faith in tradition, why would people whose tradition is entirely different relish that happiness and come halfway across the world to learn more about it?
Actually, this happiness is not sentimental; it is factual and universal because it is innate to our higher spiritual nature. All of us, whatever our religion, nationality or race, are souls and by our nature are sat-cit-anand, eternal, knowledgeable and blissful. At present, we have forgotten our spiritual identity and have alienated ourselves from our innate joyfulness. Through practices like kirtan, we reconnect with that intrinsic joy. The Vedic wisdom-tradition explains logically and philosophically how and why we experience this sublime happiness – and also how we can maximize our connection with that happiness. By studying Vedic wisdom, we will understand how this happiness, far from being a mere sentimental imagination, is life’s supreme happiness – an experience of our highest spiritual nature.
Monday 29 April 2013
Q10. Why do temples spend so much money on expensive religious rituals when beggars are starving outside the temples? Wouldn't God be more pleased if his starving children – those beggars – are fed?
It’s certainly sad to see anyone starving. If the social culture were more spiritual and less materialistic, the state officials as well as the wealthy would have a spirit of compassion and a system of charity to care for the needy. And they would also have gorgeous worship of God in temples.
Certainly, the needy should be cared for, but are caring for them and opulently worshiping God mutually exclusive? Is the worship of God really causing starvation among the poor?
If we are truly concerned about starving people, then why do we target expensive religious rituals alone? Why not target the billionaires and trillionaires who spend millions on their wardrobes and perfumes? Outside their mansions also beggars are starving. Why not target theatres, casinos, race courses, malls, sports tournaments and the like where huge amounts of money are spent on entertainment? If even a fraction of that money was used for feeding the needy, starvation could be wiped out from the entire planet. Singling out religious rituals amounts to emotionally manipulating public opinion against religion.
And actually, the gorgeous worship of God far from causing starvation decreases starvation in several ways. Such worship is an essential part of a comprehensive spiritual culture that fosters self-mastery among people. If people started living according to this spiritual culture, they would become vegetarians. They would never kill other children of God – the animals – just for satisfying their own tongues. And this shift to vegetarianism would decrease starvation globally. How? Large quantities of fodder need to be fed to the slaughterhouse animals to get just a small quantity of flesh. If people became vegetarian, all the land used to grow fodder would become available for growing grains to feed human beings. Many surveys have shown that the land required to feed one non- vegetarian person can feed three or more vegetarian people. If everyone in the world became vegetarian, the world’s starvation problem would be substantially reduced, if not entirely solved.
Similarly, if people participated in an authentic spiritual culture, they would give up drinking alcohol. To produce alcohol, so much land that could be used to grow grains is used instead to grow sugarcane. If people stopped drinking alcohol, all that land would become available for feeding starving people.
“A typical diet requires up to 2.5 times the amount of land compared to a vegetarian diet.” (Zollitsch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S., and Haslberger, A. 2007. Sustainable Food Production and Ethics.Wageningen Academic Publishers). “A farmer can feed up to 30 people throughout the year with vegetables, fruits, cereals and vegetable fats on one hectare of land. If the same area is used for the production of eggs, milk and/or meat the number of people fed varies from 5-10.” (Pachauri, R.K., Chairman IPCC 08.09.08. “Global Warning!The Impact of meat production and consumption on climate change”.)
maas khate samay aur sharab pite samay hume bhikaariyo ki yaad kyo nahi ati hai? Many times that’s because the desire to enjoy eating meat and drinking liquor is too strong and irresistible.
Spiritual culture enables us to relish a higher happiness. This happiness empowers us to break free from the desires for lower materialistic pleasures like meat-eating and drinking, thereby freeing resources for food production. That’s how even from a practical perspective the various rituals contribute to decreasing starvation.
Certainly, the needy should be cared for, but are caring for them and opulently worshiping God mutually exclusive? Is the worship of God really causing starvation among the poor?
If we are truly concerned about starving people, then why do we target expensive religious rituals alone? Why not target the billionaires and trillionaires who spend millions on their wardrobes and perfumes? Outside their mansions also beggars are starving. Why not target theatres, casinos, race courses, malls, sports tournaments and the like where huge amounts of money are spent on entertainment? If even a fraction of that money was used for feeding the needy, starvation could be wiped out from the entire planet. Singling out religious rituals amounts to emotionally manipulating public opinion against religion.
And actually, the gorgeous worship of God far from causing starvation decreases starvation in several ways. Such worship is an essential part of a comprehensive spiritual culture that fosters self-mastery among people. If people started living according to this spiritual culture, they would become vegetarians. They would never kill other children of God – the animals – just for satisfying their own tongues. And this shift to vegetarianism would decrease starvation globally. How? Large quantities of fodder need to be fed to the slaughterhouse animals to get just a small quantity of flesh. If people became vegetarian, all the land used to grow fodder would become available for growing grains to feed human beings. Many surveys have shown that the land required to feed one non- vegetarian person can feed three or more vegetarian people. If everyone in the world became vegetarian, the world’s starvation problem would be substantially reduced, if not entirely solved.
Similarly, if people participated in an authentic spiritual culture, they would give up drinking alcohol. To produce alcohol, so much land that could be used to grow grains is used instead to grow sugarcane. If people stopped drinking alcohol, all that land would become available for feeding starving people.
“A typical diet requires up to 2.5 times the amount of land compared to a vegetarian diet.” (Zollitsch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S., and Haslberger, A. 2007. Sustainable Food Production and Ethics.Wageningen Academic Publishers). “A farmer can feed up to 30 people throughout the year with vegetables, fruits, cereals and vegetable fats on one hectare of land. If the same area is used for the production of eggs, milk and/or meat the number of people fed varies from 5-10.” (Pachauri, R.K., Chairman IPCC 08.09.08. “Global Warning!The Impact of meat production and consumption on climate change”.)
maas khate samay aur sharab pite samay hume bhikaariyo ki yaad kyo nahi ati hai? Many times that’s because the desire to enjoy eating meat and drinking liquor is too strong and irresistible.
Spiritual culture enables us to relish a higher happiness. This happiness empowers us to break free from the desires for lower materialistic pleasures like meat-eating and drinking, thereby freeing resources for food production. That’s how even from a practical perspective the various rituals contribute to decreasing starvation.
Q9. Why do temples provide special queues for quick darshan to those who give more donations? Shouldn't everyone be equal in the house of God?
God is definitely equal to all. But his equality is not the equality of a dead stone that has no regard for what anyone does to it. His equality is the equality of a living, loving person who naturally reciprocates with those who love and serve him. The Bhagavad- gita (4.11) states that God rewards all people according to how they approach him. So if someone renders him more service, then naturally God reciprocates more with him. Offering that which is very dear to us – money – is one important way of rendering service to him. So those who donate money are also rendering service to him. Naturally God reciprocates by giving them some special facilities.
We may say that such a preferential darshan arrangement is made by temple priests who want more people to give big donations. Even if that is true, the practice of making such arrangements is not wrong; it is in harmony with God’s reciprocal nature.
The important point to note is that God doesn’t reserve his blessings only for those who give donations. Nor does the fact that those who give donations and get quicker darshan mean that they necessarily get greater blessings. God ultimately sees the attitude of our heart. If someone gives a big donation and goes proudly in front of God that person will not get as much blessings as some other person who waits humbly in a queue for the turn to take darshan.
If we can’t offer him much money, we can still offer him something just as valuable: our time. By waiting patiently in the queue to have his darshan, we are offering him our time. God notices and rewards this offering too. So just because some people get quicker darshan doesn’t mean that they alone get God’s blessings and others don’t. God blesses everyone.
Money and time are both ways of offering our devotion to Krishna. Some people may offer more money and less time; others, less money and more time. God accepts the offerings of both. Jiske paas jo hota hai, ve vo de sakte hai. Bhagavan to bhaava-graahi hai. Jo hum bhava se dete hai, ve vo svikaar karte hai..
We may say that such a preferential darshan arrangement is made by temple priests who want more people to give big donations. Even if that is true, the practice of making such arrangements is not wrong; it is in harmony with God’s reciprocal nature.
The important point to note is that God doesn’t reserve his blessings only for those who give donations. Nor does the fact that those who give donations and get quicker darshan mean that they necessarily get greater blessings. God ultimately sees the attitude of our heart. If someone gives a big donation and goes proudly in front of God that person will not get as much blessings as some other person who waits humbly in a queue for the turn to take darshan.
If we can’t offer him much money, we can still offer him something just as valuable: our time. By waiting patiently in the queue to have his darshan, we are offering him our time. God notices and rewards this offering too. So just because some people get quicker darshan doesn’t mean that they alone get God’s blessings and others don’t. God blesses everyone.
Money and time are both ways of offering our devotion to Krishna. Some people may offer more money and less time; others, less money and more time. God accepts the offerings of both. Jiske paas jo hota hai, ve vo de sakte hai. Bhagavan to bhaava-graahi hai. Jo hum bhava se dete hai, ve vo svikaar karte hai..
Q8. Why should we offer our hair, a dirty part of our body, to Balaji? And as this hair is later sold, kya ye shraddha ka dhanda nahi hain?
We offer our hair to Balaji to express our love for him.
Love is expressed in two ways: by what we give to our beloved and by what we give up for the sake of our beloved. For example, children can show their love for their parents by studying well and giving them a glowing report card. And they can also show their love by giving up playing before exams so as to focus on studies. Similarly, we can express our devotion for God by giving him precious things like jewels and also by giving up for his sake those things that distract us from him.
One prominent distraction is hair. Though we may say that hair is dirty, we consider it dirty only after it is cut off from the head. As long as it is on the head, we consider it a sign of beauty – a part of our hairstyle. We often obsess over it, arranging it, combing it and peeking frequently into a mirror to see if it needs to be re-arranged. Our obsession with hair makes us more infatuated with our body and thereby distracts us from deeper spiritual contemplation.
That’s why the Vedic-wisdom tradition urges us to curb this distraction. In keeping with this guideline, monks shave their heads permanently. The rest of us are recommended to at least shave our head when we go on a pilgrimage. By this, we express our devotion to God by giving up for his sake that which is so dear to us: our beloved hair. For women especially, this is no small sacrifice.
When we shave our head thus at Tirupati, what does Balaji see when the door to his house open? He is not baal-graahi; he is bhaava-graahi. He doesn't see kale baal, saphed baal, dandruff waale baal. He sees the sacrifice, the devotion, the faith that is expressed through that hair.
Even a swan can separate milk from water and accept just the milk. God is the supreme hamsa, the paramahamsa. Why can he not separate the devotion from the hair and accept the devotion? If we think he can’t, then that’s probably because we can’t see beyond the dandruff's to the devotion.
Does this ritual make a business out of our faith? Not at all.
Anyone with even introductory knowledge of Indian traditions knows that the tradition of offering hair at a pilgrimage long predates the modern business of mass-producing wigs. Due to the popularity of wigs in today’s world, discarded human hair is in great demand. If the hair that for centuries was just being brushed away as waste can be easily recycled to gain money for opening schools,hospitals and orphanages, then what’s wrong with that? As it is, many modern people are going to spend money on wigs. Why not let that money come to God and through him go to the needy? It is not that the ritual of shaving the hair was created to make money by selling hair. Such a notion arises from one’s ignorance of history.
So the practice of cutting hair is primarily meant to give us an opportunity for expressing our devotion to God by sacrificing something dear for his sake. The money that is made out of the hair is just an incidental byproduct.
ye shraddha ka dhanda nahi hai, ye waste ka dhanda hai. akalmandi ki baat hai..
Love is expressed in two ways: by what we give to our beloved and by what we give up for the sake of our beloved. For example, children can show their love for their parents by studying well and giving them a glowing report card. And they can also show their love by giving up playing before exams so as to focus on studies. Similarly, we can express our devotion for God by giving him precious things like jewels and also by giving up for his sake those things that distract us from him.
One prominent distraction is hair. Though we may say that hair is dirty, we consider it dirty only after it is cut off from the head. As long as it is on the head, we consider it a sign of beauty – a part of our hairstyle. We often obsess over it, arranging it, combing it and peeking frequently into a mirror to see if it needs to be re-arranged. Our obsession with hair makes us more infatuated with our body and thereby distracts us from deeper spiritual contemplation.
That’s why the Vedic-wisdom tradition urges us to curb this distraction. In keeping with this guideline, monks shave their heads permanently. The rest of us are recommended to at least shave our head when we go on a pilgrimage. By this, we express our devotion to God by giving up for his sake that which is so dear to us: our beloved hair. For women especially, this is no small sacrifice.
When we shave our head thus at Tirupati, what does Balaji see when the door to his house open? He is not baal-graahi; he is bhaava-graahi. He doesn't see kale baal, saphed baal, dandruff waale baal. He sees the sacrifice, the devotion, the faith that is expressed through that hair.
Even a swan can separate milk from water and accept just the milk. God is the supreme hamsa, the paramahamsa. Why can he not separate the devotion from the hair and accept the devotion? If we think he can’t, then that’s probably because we can’t see beyond the dandruff's to the devotion.
Does this ritual make a business out of our faith? Not at all.
Anyone with even introductory knowledge of Indian traditions knows that the tradition of offering hair at a pilgrimage long predates the modern business of mass-producing wigs. Due to the popularity of wigs in today’s world, discarded human hair is in great demand. If the hair that for centuries was just being brushed away as waste can be easily recycled to gain money for opening schools,hospitals and orphanages, then what’s wrong with that? As it is, many modern people are going to spend money on wigs. Why not let that money come to God and through him go to the needy? It is not that the ritual of shaving the hair was created to make money by selling hair. Such a notion arises from one’s ignorance of history.
So the practice of cutting hair is primarily meant to give us an opportunity for expressing our devotion to God by sacrificing something dear for his sake. The money that is made out of the hair is just an incidental byproduct.
ye shraddha ka dhanda nahi hai, ye waste ka dhanda hai. akalmandi ki baat hai..
Monday 22 April 2013
Q7. Are rituals needed in religion?
Rituals are integral not just to religion, but also to every part of life. For example, during a birthday celebration, we blow candles. What is this if not a ritual? Most people who blow candles on birthdays don’t even know what is its purpose. They just do it because it feels good or because that’s how they have seen birthdays celebrated. Similarly, in a spectator sport, clapping is a ritual for expressing applause. In daily life, shaking hands with friends is a ritual for greeting.
In general, rituals provide a template to guide our emotions and actions according to situations. Thereby, they bring a sense of familiarity and order in our life.
Rituals serve a similar purpose in religion. They provide us with time-honored means for expressing and experiencing appropriate devotional emotions. Lighting incense, singing sacred songs, ringing bells, playing musical instruments, chanting the holy names of God
– such rituals help make our experience of God tangible and real.
Imagine a cricket match in which no one claps, no matter how brilliantly a batsman hits a sixer. The game may go on, but cricket lovers would feel something significant missing, wouldn’t they?
Wouldn’t the devotees of God feel the same way if devotional festivals were to be done without religious rituals? Aren’t they entitled to their rituals just as cricket lovers are entitled to their ritual of clapping in a match?
Additionally, many religious rituals are far more deeply and meaningfully connected with their corresponding occasions than are secular rituals. For example, no intrinsic connection exists between a birthday and the blowing of candles. If we feel happy while blowing candles on our birthday, that’s not because the blowing of a candle has the intrinsic capacity to produce happiness. We feel happy due to an external convention that associates the blowing of candles with the birthday celebration which is considered to be an occasion for happiness.
But when we go to a temple and bow down before God, that bodily ritual intrinsically promotes the appropriate emotion of humility. To understand how, I suggest you try out this simple experiment.
Sit relaxed on an easy chair, put one leg across the other, place your arms behind your head and lean backwards. Now try to feel humble.
Difficult, isn’t it? The very posture induces the feeling of bossiness. The same principle applies conversely to how the bodily posture of bowing down fosters humility.
This psychophysical or body-mind correlation is a subtle science. Based on this science, the Vedic wisdom-tradition prescribes various rituals that help us relish divine emotions. All such rituals have significance, that is, they signify something deeper and greater.
And they all have a purpose, that is, they awaken the corresponding devotional emotion.
To understand the significance and purpose of various rituals, we need education. If we perform the rituals without knowing their significance and purpose, we may still get some benefit. But if we do them with proper understanding and sincere devotion, then we get the full benefit. A ritual imbued with the right spirit is spi-ritual.
Of course, this is not to imply that all rituals are spiritual. Many unscrupulous people have exploited the widespread ignorance about the purpose of rituals. Such people have concocted many rituals that are not rooted in the scriptural tradition and don’t serve any spiritual purpose. One common example of concocted rituals is the repeated recitation of the names of some self-styled spiritual teacher as if those names were as potent as the names of God. The prevalence of such concocted rituals again highlight the need for education.
By proper education we can avoid the two extremes of rejecting all religious rituals as blind faith and accepting all rituals as if they were spiritual.
In general, rituals provide a template to guide our emotions and actions according to situations. Thereby, they bring a sense of familiarity and order in our life.
Rituals serve a similar purpose in religion. They provide us with time-honored means for expressing and experiencing appropriate devotional emotions. Lighting incense, singing sacred songs, ringing bells, playing musical instruments, chanting the holy names of God
– such rituals help make our experience of God tangible and real.
Imagine a cricket match in which no one claps, no matter how brilliantly a batsman hits a sixer. The game may go on, but cricket lovers would feel something significant missing, wouldn’t they?
Wouldn’t the devotees of God feel the same way if devotional festivals were to be done without religious rituals? Aren’t they entitled to their rituals just as cricket lovers are entitled to their ritual of clapping in a match?
Additionally, many religious rituals are far more deeply and meaningfully connected with their corresponding occasions than are secular rituals. For example, no intrinsic connection exists between a birthday and the blowing of candles. If we feel happy while blowing candles on our birthday, that’s not because the blowing of a candle has the intrinsic capacity to produce happiness. We feel happy due to an external convention that associates the blowing of candles with the birthday celebration which is considered to be an occasion for happiness.
But when we go to a temple and bow down before God, that bodily ritual intrinsically promotes the appropriate emotion of humility. To understand how, I suggest you try out this simple experiment.
Sit relaxed on an easy chair, put one leg across the other, place your arms behind your head and lean backwards. Now try to feel humble.
Difficult, isn’t it? The very posture induces the feeling of bossiness. The same principle applies conversely to how the bodily posture of bowing down fosters humility.
This psychophysical or body-mind correlation is a subtle science. Based on this science, the Vedic wisdom-tradition prescribes various rituals that help us relish divine emotions. All such rituals have significance, that is, they signify something deeper and greater.
And they all have a purpose, that is, they awaken the corresponding devotional emotion.
To understand the significance and purpose of various rituals, we need education. If we perform the rituals without knowing their significance and purpose, we may still get some benefit. But if we do them with proper understanding and sincere devotion, then we get the full benefit. A ritual imbued with the right spirit is spi-ritual.
Of course, this is not to imply that all rituals are spiritual. Many unscrupulous people have exploited the widespread ignorance about the purpose of rituals. Such people have concocted many rituals that are not rooted in the scriptural tradition and don’t serve any spiritual purpose. One common example of concocted rituals is the repeated recitation of the names of some self-styled spiritual teacher as if those names were as potent as the names of God. The prevalence of such concocted rituals again highlight the need for education.
By proper education we can avoid the two extremes of rejecting all religious rituals as blind faith and accepting all rituals as if they were spiritual.
Q6. As we wouldn’t chant “Papa, papa” if we wanted a chocolate from our father, why should we chant “Krishna, Krishna” if we want something from him?
The actual purpose of chanting the names of God is not to ask something from him, but to awaken our love for him.
We are the children of God, but we have forgotten this because we are suffering from spiritual amnesia or forgetfulness. Hum bhagavan ke khoye huye bacche hai (We are the lost children of God). For curing amnesia, patients are often exposed repeatedly to stimuli from their forgotten life. So for curing our spiritual amnesia, we need to expose ourselves repeatedly to spiritual stimuli. The most potent of all such stimuli is the holy name of God because God is our closest spiritual relative. So chanting his names repeatedly is the most powerful treatment. Thus the scriptures recommend chanting because they want to cure our spiritual amnesia.
However, most of us are not interested in that cure; we are interested only in worldly things. So to induce us to chant, the scriptures also promise that our worldly desires will be fulfilled by chanting.This promise is like the promise of parents to their children that they will get a sweet if they take a medicine.
Initially when we approach God at the levels of fear and desire, we chant because we want something from him. Later, as we learn about the level of love by education and rise towards it, then we chant to awaken our love for him. And finally when we truly love God, then we chant because it helps us to easily remember our beloved.
We are the children of God, but we have forgotten this because we are suffering from spiritual amnesia or forgetfulness. Hum bhagavan ke khoye huye bacche hai (We are the lost children of God). For curing amnesia, patients are often exposed repeatedly to stimuli from their forgotten life. So for curing our spiritual amnesia, we need to expose ourselves repeatedly to spiritual stimuli. The most potent of all such stimuli is the holy name of God because God is our closest spiritual relative. So chanting his names repeatedly is the most powerful treatment. Thus the scriptures recommend chanting because they want to cure our spiritual amnesia.
However, most of us are not interested in that cure; we are interested only in worldly things. So to induce us to chant, the scriptures also promise that our worldly desires will be fulfilled by chanting.This promise is like the promise of parents to their children that they will get a sweet if they take a medicine.
Initially when we approach God at the levels of fear and desire, we chant because we want something from him. Later, as we learn about the level of love by education and rise towards it, then we chant to awaken our love for him. And finally when we truly love God, then we chant because it helps us to easily remember our beloved.
Saturday 20 April 2013
Q5. Is religion meant to teach us to love God or to fear God?
Religion is ultimately meant to enable us to love God, but most people are not ready to love God. To help such people become ready, the scriptures offer four broad levels for approaching God. These levels are non-sectarian; they can be found in all the religions of the world. These levels are fear, desire, duty and love.
1. Fear:-
Some people fear, “If I disobey God, then he may punish me for my wrongdoings. So better let me go to his temple and pacify him by my worship.” This sort of worship is certainly better than atheism, but it is based on a very limited and a somewhat negative conception of God as a stern judge, as a cosmic punisher – not as an object of love.
2. Desire:-
Some people think, “There are so many things I want; if I pray to God, perhaps He will give them to me.” Here the conception of God is more positive, as a potent desire- fulfiller. But still the relationship with him is utilitarian, based on give-and-take rather than love.
3. Duty:-
Some people reason, “God has already given me so much – life, body, health, food, clothing, shelter. It is my duty to go periodically to His temple and thank him.” Here the relationship is based on gratitude for what has already been given and not on greed for what one wants to receive. So it is a somewhat steady relationship. However, duty can over time become a burden. Moreover, the focus in this level is still on what God has done for me, not on God himself.
4. Love:-
This is the purest level of approaching God, where a devotee feels, “My dear Lord, you are the supreme object of my love; I have been offering my love to so many people and things, but that has never made me happy. Now I simply want to love and serve you eternally and I do not want anything worldly in return for my service; I simply wish to love you and to be loved by you. Just as a parent takes care of the child without the child having to ask them for anything, I know that you will similarly take care of me. I will accept whatever is your plan for me and keep serving you no matter what happens in life.”
Today most people are primarily interested in worldly pursuits: they want to avoid some misfortune or to attain some fortune. When they worship God to fulfill these ends, they do so at the levels of fear and desire. By education, they can all progress to the level of loving God, which is the ultimate purpose of religion.
1. Fear:-
Some people fear, “If I disobey God, then he may punish me for my wrongdoings. So better let me go to his temple and pacify him by my worship.” This sort of worship is certainly better than atheism, but it is based on a very limited and a somewhat negative conception of God as a stern judge, as a cosmic punisher – not as an object of love.
2. Desire:-
Some people think, “There are so many things I want; if I pray to God, perhaps He will give them to me.” Here the conception of God is more positive, as a potent desire- fulfiller. But still the relationship with him is utilitarian, based on give-and-take rather than love.
3. Duty:-
Some people reason, “God has already given me so much – life, body, health, food, clothing, shelter. It is my duty to go periodically to His temple and thank him.” Here the relationship is based on gratitude for what has already been given and not on greed for what one wants to receive. So it is a somewhat steady relationship. However, duty can over time become a burden. Moreover, the focus in this level is still on what God has done for me, not on God himself.
4. Love:-
This is the purest level of approaching God, where a devotee feels, “My dear Lord, you are the supreme object of my love; I have been offering my love to so many people and things, but that has never made me happy. Now I simply want to love and serve you eternally and I do not want anything worldly in return for my service; I simply wish to love you and to be loved by you. Just as a parent takes care of the child without the child having to ask them for anything, I know that you will similarly take care of me. I will accept whatever is your plan for me and keep serving you no matter what happens in life.”
Today most people are primarily interested in worldly pursuits: they want to avoid some misfortune or to attain some fortune. When they worship God to fulfill these ends, they do so at the levels of fear and desire. By education, they can all progress to the level of loving God, which is the ultimate purpose of religion.
Q4. Is religion made by man or by God?
Religion can refer to various things.
If by religion we refer to the Sanskrit word dharma, then that is definitely not man-made; that is our intrinsic nature, the very fabric of our being.
However, we normally don’t understand religion this way. To gain a sense of its normal meaning, let’s analyze the word etymologically and functionally.
Etymologically, or in terms of the roots of words, religion refers to “respect for what is sacred, reverence for God,” or “obligation, the bond between man and God.” These roots indicate that religion is the means by which we bond with God in love. Religion provides us tools for inner transformation by which we can learn to love God. So it can be said to be a type of treatment – a treatment for the soul. This spiritual treatment cures the misdirection of our love and enables us to love the eternal instead of the temporary, God instead of the world.
Religion as a spiritual treatment is not so much a set of dogmas or rituals as a set of universal principles. These principles are intrinsic to existence, as is say gravity. We may call gravity by different names in different languages; we may or may not comprehend the origin or cause of gravity; we may or may not know the mathematical equations that describe it. But still gravity exists and acts. The same applies to the principles that comprise religion. Just as the universe is made by God, so are these principles that govern our destiny in the universe. So, when by the word “religion” we refer to these principles, then again it is definitely made by God, not man.
Functionally, we often use the word ‘religion’ to refer to different religions like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. These great religions have usually begun with a primeval revelation in which God shared the knowledge of the principles of religion. So, at their roots, these religions are God-made. However, over the course of centuries, they have undergone many changes. Not all the forms that they have taken are geared towards helping people to love God. Many concocted ideas and practices have been added in it. So, much of what goes on in the name of religion today is man-made.
Therefore, to the extent that today’s religions are in accordance with the words of God, to that extent they can be said to be made by God. To the extent that they deviate from those divine words, to that extent they are man-made.
If by religion we refer to the Sanskrit word dharma, then that is definitely not man-made; that is our intrinsic nature, the very fabric of our being.
However, we normally don’t understand religion this way. To gain a sense of its normal meaning, let’s analyze the word etymologically and functionally.
Etymologically, or in terms of the roots of words, religion refers to “respect for what is sacred, reverence for God,” or “obligation, the bond between man and God.” These roots indicate that religion is the means by which we bond with God in love. Religion provides us tools for inner transformation by which we can learn to love God. So it can be said to be a type of treatment – a treatment for the soul. This spiritual treatment cures the misdirection of our love and enables us to love the eternal instead of the temporary, God instead of the world.
Religion as a spiritual treatment is not so much a set of dogmas or rituals as a set of universal principles. These principles are intrinsic to existence, as is say gravity. We may call gravity by different names in different languages; we may or may not comprehend the origin or cause of gravity; we may or may not know the mathematical equations that describe it. But still gravity exists and acts. The same applies to the principles that comprise religion. Just as the universe is made by God, so are these principles that govern our destiny in the universe. So, when by the word “religion” we refer to these principles, then again it is definitely made by God, not man.
Functionally, we often use the word ‘religion’ to refer to different religions like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. These great religions have usually begun with a primeval revelation in which God shared the knowledge of the principles of religion. So, at their roots, these religions are God-made. However, over the course of centuries, they have undergone many changes. Not all the forms that they have taken are geared towards helping people to love God. Many concocted ideas and practices have been added in it. So, much of what goes on in the name of religion today is man-made.
Therefore, to the extent that today’s religions are in accordance with the words of God, to that extent they can be said to be made by God. To the extent that they deviate from those divine words, to that extent they are man-made.
Q3. What is the definition of religion?
Love.
A Sanskrit word that roughly corresponds with religion is dharma which comes from the root dhr which means to sustain. So, dharma refers to that which sustains our existence, that which is our essence, that without which we would not be we.
That essence is love.
Love is our innermost longing, our deepest need, our greatest thirst. Movies, novels and songs constantly glorify love. And we all dream about it. Without love, life wouldn't be worth living.
Sadly however, our longing for love is rarely fulfilled. We often don’t find a person whom we feel inspired to love wholeheartedly. Even if we do, that love ends heartbreakingly with unavoidable death. And to the extent that we have rejoiced in love, to that extent we lament in bereavement.
Is our longing for love meant to be doomed?
A love affair is sure to be doomed if either of the lovers ceases to exist or ceases to love the other. But the same love affair can go on perpetually if neither the lovers ceases to exist or ceases to love. Is this really possible? Yes, declare the scriptures. They explain that we are at our core eternal spiritual beings, souls. So our longing for love is meant to be directed towards an eternal object: God.
God is not just an abstract all-pervading principle but the supreme all-attractive person who has all lovable qualities in their highest perfection. That’s why he is supremely lovable. When we learn to love him, our longing for love becomes eternally and perfectly fulfilled, and we attain everlasting happiness.
So, to be more specific, our dharma is not just love, but eternal love for God.
A Sanskrit word that roughly corresponds with religion is dharma which comes from the root dhr which means to sustain. So, dharma refers to that which sustains our existence, that which is our essence, that without which we would not be we.
That essence is love.
Love is our innermost longing, our deepest need, our greatest thirst. Movies, novels and songs constantly glorify love. And we all dream about it. Without love, life wouldn't be worth living.
Sadly however, our longing for love is rarely fulfilled. We often don’t find a person whom we feel inspired to love wholeheartedly. Even if we do, that love ends heartbreakingly with unavoidable death. And to the extent that we have rejoiced in love, to that extent we lament in bereavement.
Is our longing for love meant to be doomed?
A love affair is sure to be doomed if either of the lovers ceases to exist or ceases to love the other. But the same love affair can go on perpetually if neither the lovers ceases to exist or ceases to love. Is this really possible? Yes, declare the scriptures. They explain that we are at our core eternal spiritual beings, souls. So our longing for love is meant to be directed towards an eternal object: God.
God is not just an abstract all-pervading principle but the supreme all-attractive person who has all lovable qualities in their highest perfection. That’s why he is supremely lovable. When we learn to love him, our longing for love becomes eternally and perfectly fulfilled, and we attain everlasting happiness.
So, to be more specific, our dharma is not just love, but eternal love for God.
Q2. Does God help atheists and oppose godmen, as OMG depicts?
God helps everyone, but he doesn't force his help on anyone. He respects our free will. So he helps us to the extent that we seek and accept his help. The Bhagavad-gita (4.11) states that as we approach God, so he reciprocates.
To understand how God reciprocates, let’s look at the three broad categories of people in their relationship with God, as depicted in OMG. These three categories are:
1. Sentimental believers:
In OMG they are represented by Kanjibhai’s wife Susheela, his neighbor Mahadeva and the general people. Majority religious believers fall in this category. They have some faith in God, but they don’t use their intelligence to seriously enquire about him. God provides scriptures to enlighten all human beings. The relationship of sentimental believers with scriptures is limited to respect. Their reverence for scripture is often accompanied by ignorance of its import. As they don’t study scripture seriously, they don’t know the proper process for worshiping God. So they take up whatever religious practice they learn from their upbringing or culture or by word-of-mouth anything that feels good and seems to suit their needs. As they base their religious practices on feelings and not on intelligence or scripture, they are especially susceptible to exploitation by godmen.
2. Exploitative godmen
In OMG they are represented by Leeladhar Swamy, Siddheshwar Maharaj and Gopi Maiyya. They are materialistic opportunists who mint money and gain prestige by exploiting the gullibility of sentimental believers. They talk about God, but they are not actually interested in him. For them God is just a tool to fulfill their own materialistic agendas. As they don’t want God’s help, he doesn't interfere in their lives. But because they often misrepresent him and his teachings and because they mislead those who have faith in him, God ensures that they get the just consequences of their misdeeds.
3. Intelligent nonbelievers
In OMG they are represented by Kanjibhai. God appreciates those who use their intelligence even if they are presently nonbelievers. After all, he has given them their intelligence and he doesn't want it to be kept in a showcase; he wants it to be used. So with their intelligence if they get questions about life, they have a right to ask for answers. And if they don’t get answers, they may conclude that the only intelligent thing to do is to become skeptical or even atheistic. However, if they assume that just because they haven’t found the answers, the answers are nowhere to be found, then they err and become close minded atheists.
To answer the questions of everyone, God has provided scriptures. And he appreciates inquisitiveness, as he demonstrates through his own example in the Bhagavad-gita
– therein, he answers all of Arjuna’s questions. Moreover, many question-answer sessions between sincere seekers and intelligent teachers stand out in the pages of the Vedic scriptures. And most importantly, the Vedanta sutra (1.1.1: athato brahma jijnasa) specifically urges all human beings to become inquisitive spiritually.
If those with intelligent questions remain open minded and continue enquiring sincerely, God will help them. He will guide them to his genuine representatives who will answer their questions. Then their skepticism will become just one passing phase in their intellectual evolution – they will graduate through it and become intelligent believers.
In OMG, Kanjibhai undergoes this evolution as he progresses from being an intelligent nonbeliever towards becoming an intelligent believer. But his progress requires something extraordinary: the personal intervention of Krishna who miraculously protects and heals him.
OMG portrays that Krishna guides Kanjibhai alone. Were there no intelligent people before Kanjibhai? Certainly there were. Would Krishna not have guided them towards becoming intelligent believers? Surely he would have; his love is for everyone not just for Kanjibhai. Then could Krishna not have used these intelligent people to guide other intelligent seekers? He certainly could. Moreover, wouldn't these intelligent people themselves have wanted to help others along the journey that they have taken? Naturally they would have. This is evident from the example of Kanjibhai, who at the movie’s climax forcefully admonished people about how not to worship.
In OMG Krishna disappears at the end, implying that he doesn’t want to give to everyone the special favor that he gave to Kanjibhai. Then how does Krishna want others to become wise like Kanjibhai? Presumably through Kanjibhai’s guidance? If so, then couldn't there have been predecessors to Kanjibhai who could have guided him? Naturally there could have been. These people comprise a fourth category of people, a category not depicted in OMG: intelligent believers. These are sincere seekers who have asked questions, found answers and have become genuine seers.
OMG requires Krishna’s miraculous intervention to guide Kanjibhai because it doesn't depict intelligent believers who could have guided him. Do such people exist? They do indeed, declare the Vedic scriptures. There exists a succession of such seers. This succession extends back into antiquity and originates in Krishna’s personal instruction to the first seer. And there exists not just one but several such successions which are called paramparas. The Padma Purana explains that there are four such paramparas: Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Kumara. These paramparas have living seers even today and all of us can gain God’s help through them.
To understand how God reciprocates, let’s look at the three broad categories of people in their relationship with God, as depicted in OMG. These three categories are:
1. Sentimental believers:
In OMG they are represented by Kanjibhai’s wife Susheela, his neighbor Mahadeva and the general people. Majority religious believers fall in this category. They have some faith in God, but they don’t use their intelligence to seriously enquire about him. God provides scriptures to enlighten all human beings. The relationship of sentimental believers with scriptures is limited to respect. Their reverence for scripture is often accompanied by ignorance of its import. As they don’t study scripture seriously, they don’t know the proper process for worshiping God. So they take up whatever religious practice they learn from their upbringing or culture or by word-of-mouth anything that feels good and seems to suit their needs. As they base their religious practices on feelings and not on intelligence or scripture, they are especially susceptible to exploitation by godmen.
2. Exploitative godmen
In OMG they are represented by Leeladhar Swamy, Siddheshwar Maharaj and Gopi Maiyya. They are materialistic opportunists who mint money and gain prestige by exploiting the gullibility of sentimental believers. They talk about God, but they are not actually interested in him. For them God is just a tool to fulfill their own materialistic agendas. As they don’t want God’s help, he doesn't interfere in their lives. But because they often misrepresent him and his teachings and because they mislead those who have faith in him, God ensures that they get the just consequences of their misdeeds.
3. Intelligent nonbelievers
In OMG they are represented by Kanjibhai. God appreciates those who use their intelligence even if they are presently nonbelievers. After all, he has given them their intelligence and he doesn't want it to be kept in a showcase; he wants it to be used. So with their intelligence if they get questions about life, they have a right to ask for answers. And if they don’t get answers, they may conclude that the only intelligent thing to do is to become skeptical or even atheistic. However, if they assume that just because they haven’t found the answers, the answers are nowhere to be found, then they err and become close minded atheists.
To answer the questions of everyone, God has provided scriptures. And he appreciates inquisitiveness, as he demonstrates through his own example in the Bhagavad-gita
– therein, he answers all of Arjuna’s questions. Moreover, many question-answer sessions between sincere seekers and intelligent teachers stand out in the pages of the Vedic scriptures. And most importantly, the Vedanta sutra (1.1.1: athato brahma jijnasa) specifically urges all human beings to become inquisitive spiritually.
If those with intelligent questions remain open minded and continue enquiring sincerely, God will help them. He will guide them to his genuine representatives who will answer their questions. Then their skepticism will become just one passing phase in their intellectual evolution – they will graduate through it and become intelligent believers.
In OMG, Kanjibhai undergoes this evolution as he progresses from being an intelligent nonbeliever towards becoming an intelligent believer. But his progress requires something extraordinary: the personal intervention of Krishna who miraculously protects and heals him.
OMG portrays that Krishna guides Kanjibhai alone. Were there no intelligent people before Kanjibhai? Certainly there were. Would Krishna not have guided them towards becoming intelligent believers? Surely he would have; his love is for everyone not just for Kanjibhai. Then could Krishna not have used these intelligent people to guide other intelligent seekers? He certainly could. Moreover, wouldn't these intelligent people themselves have wanted to help others along the journey that they have taken? Naturally they would have. This is evident from the example of Kanjibhai, who at the movie’s climax forcefully admonished people about how not to worship.
In OMG Krishna disappears at the end, implying that he doesn’t want to give to everyone the special favor that he gave to Kanjibhai. Then how does Krishna want others to become wise like Kanjibhai? Presumably through Kanjibhai’s guidance? If so, then couldn't there have been predecessors to Kanjibhai who could have guided him? Naturally there could have been. These people comprise a fourth category of people, a category not depicted in OMG: intelligent believers. These are sincere seekers who have asked questions, found answers and have become genuine seers.
OMG requires Krishna’s miraculous intervention to guide Kanjibhai because it doesn't depict intelligent believers who could have guided him. Do such people exist? They do indeed, declare the Vedic scriptures. There exists a succession of such seers. This succession extends back into antiquity and originates in Krishna’s personal instruction to the first seer. And there exists not just one but several such successions which are called paramparas. The Padma Purana explains that there are four such paramparas: Sri, Brahma, Rudra and Kumara. These paramparas have living seers even today and all of us can gain God’s help through them.
Q1. Do we need middlemen to approach God?
Even if for discussion’s sake, we assume that we don’t need middlemen, then who will tell us that we don’t need any middle- men? In OMG, Kanjibhai takes up that role. By thus giving us the message that we don’t need any middlemen, he ends up acting as a middle-man. Therefore, those who convey the idea that no middle-men are needed to approach God are making a self-refuting statement because by stating this they are themselves acting as middlemen.
Even if we argue that in OMG Kanjibhai rejects the role of a middleman by beheading his own image that people were about to worship, still even in that rejection, he is acting as a go-between by telling people that this is not the way to worship God.
Even if we listen to atheists and reject the existence of God entirely, we can’t avoid middlemen; we are letting those preachers of atheism become our middlemen. But these are middlemen who meddle in our relationship with God and push us far away from him.
So rather than futilely denying the need of middlemen, we will be much better off investing our intellectual energy in finding out the right kind of middlemen – those who are actually close to God and will help us come closer to him.
Even if we argue that in OMG Kanjibhai rejects the role of a middleman by beheading his own image that people were about to worship, still even in that rejection, he is acting as a go-between by telling people that this is not the way to worship God.
Even if we listen to atheists and reject the existence of God entirely, we can’t avoid middlemen; we are letting those preachers of atheism become our middlemen. But these are middlemen who meddle in our relationship with God and push us far away from him.
So rather than futilely denying the need of middlemen, we will be much better off investing our intellectual energy in finding out the right kind of middlemen – those who are actually close to God and will help us come closer to him.
Introduction to " Oh My God Re-answering The Questions "
Introduction
How a monk wrote a book about a movie?
“Oh My God!” was the first movie that I watched after nearly fifteen years. After doing engineering from the Government College of Engineering, Pune, and working in a multinational software company, I became convinced that I could best serve society by studying and sharing spiritual knowledge. Wanting to dedicate myself fully to this service, I became a monk in 1998. Since then, my spiritual study, teaching and writing left me with no time or interest for watching movies.
Nonetheless, I did stay in touch with the movie world. As I frequently answered questions on my website www.thespiritualscientist.com. I was sometimes asked questions about movies that had some connection with spirituality, for example, Om Shanti Om that depicted the reincarnation of its hero and heroine. But never was I asked as many questions about any one movie as about Oh My God. Normally, when I am asked to comment on a movie, I read its reviews and get an adequate idea of the plot and the thrust. I did the same with OMG and got a fair sense of the questions that it raised. In response, I gave audio answers and wrote an article. But several friends suggested that as this movie raised so many questions, it merited a more elaborate, book-length response. They also insisted that to address those questions effectively, I needed to understand the emotional appeal of OMG, and for that I had to watch it.
That’s how I watched a Bollywood movie after fifteen years. Some people had warned me that OMG was blasphemous, but I didn’t see it that way. I firmly believe that when we start labeling reasonable arguments as blasphemy, we start slipping towards fanaticism. And many of the arguments made in OMG were definitely reasonable, some even excellent. When Akshay Kumar playing as Krishna says, “Main Bhagavan hu isliye chamatkar kartaa hu, na ki main chamatkar kartaa hu isliye Bhagavan hu”, he states the relationship between God’s identity and miracles brilliantly.
I not only appreciated OMG’s logic, but also connected emotionally with the courage and rage of Kanjibhai. I remembered how in my teens I had worshiped Ganesh for doing well in a particular exam. But when the results didn’t turn out as well as I had expected, I became so angry that I tore apart a picture of Ganesh and threw it away. My mother who had encouraged me to do that worship watched on in silent horror. From her past experience with my fits of rage, she knew better than to try to stop me at such times. Soon after that incident, I became an atheist. In Kanjibhai’s rage at the destruction of his shop, I could see an enlarged version of my teenage rage.
If I was like that just a few decades ago, why am I today a monk trying to share God’s message with others? It’s a long answer and this book is not the forum for that. But the essential cause of my transformation was education. Over the years, I have found answers to many questions that I had considered unanswerable. In the Vedic wisdom-tradition I have found a coherent and cogent worldview that provides intellectually satisfactory answers to life’s fundamental questions. That’s why I felt inspired to dedicate my life to studying and sharing this knowledge.
Education has two core parts: to know that we don’t know and to know what we don’t know. OMG highlights the first part of education; it raises many valid questions that demonstrate how we know so little about religion. In this book, I focus on the second part of education by striving to answer those questions.
I use the words ‘strive to answer’ because several of the answers are not just about conceptual understanding but about practical living. I am striving to live according to the time-honored spiritual principles that I explain in these answers. The godmen indicted in OMG make a mockery of these principles and I have no intention of defending them. In fact, I enjoyed the exposure of their arrogance, hypocrisy and peevishness.
However, the danger of OMG-type depictions is blanket generalization. Many spiritual teachers are purely and selflessly devoted to God; they work tirelessly to help others as a part of their devotion to God. I don’t mean to imply that I am one among them; that would be presumptuous. But I do know that many of my spiritual teachers live close to this saintly standard; I am their student and servant, trying to emulate their glorious example according to my small capacity. Nonetheless, the point to emphasize is that the ideal of saintly devotion to God does exist – definitely in principle and limitedly in practice.
And isn’t this the way people are in all fields? A rare few are ideal; most are average and some are abysmal. Consider the field of medicine. Doctors selflessly devoted to treating others at the risk of their own lives are a rare few. Doctors seeking a career that also provides a life long avenue for helping others are in the majority. And doctors who use treatment as a masquerade to fleece their patients as much as possible are the bottom abysmal few. If these worst of the ranks of doctors were depicted as the typical, doctors would have a right to feel wronged, wouldn’t they?
When some pathetic godmen – the worst of the ranks of spiritual teachers – are depicted as the typical, don’t spiritual teachers have a right to feel similarly wronged? OMG does try to avoid this extreme by depicting one of the gurus, the Pujari played by Arun Bali, as humble, considerate and conciliatory? However, that attempt is undeveloped; OMG quickly reduces him to the role of a cheerleader for Kanjibhai – a cheerleader dressed in saffron.
The godmen are pathetic in both their behavior and in their answers to Kanjibhai’s questions. But do all spiritual teachers have to be like that? If an intelligent person like Kanjibhai can learn a few things by using his basic common sense and by studying the Bhagavad-gita for two months, then couldn't others like him have learnt more by studying it much longer? Might there exist saintly people who combine the sincerity of the Pujari and the logicality of Kanjibhai? I have met many. On their behalf, I write this book.
Part of the charm of OMG is the middle-class status of Kanjibhai; everyone can relate with him. You can if you like consider me to be a middle-class monk. On the lower side are roadside beggars who don ochre robes to increase their alms; on the upper side are charismatic gurus who have thousands of followers. I am somewhere in between – an ordinary teacher and writer on spiritual topics. I like more to think and write in private than speak in public. I have no charisma, no extraordinary abilities – just a desire to share what I have learnt from my teachers.
A middle-class monk answering the questions of a middle class man. Poetic justice at work? I don’t know. Maybe you can decide after reading this book.
Actually, OMG doesn’t just raise questions; it also claims to give answers. These answers are given explicitly by Kanjibhai in his answers to the questions he is asked in a TV talk show and implicitly by Kanjibhai through his actions that he chooses with the approval of the movie’s Krishna. These answers raise serious questions about several specific religious practices as well as the generic role of religion in society. This book addresses such issues raised by those answers, hence its subtitle: re-answering the questions.
I have written this book as a series of question-answers to make it easily accessible. You can go directly to any question that interests you. However, as every successive question builds on the previous QAs, you may gain a clearer understanding if you go from the start to the end. As OMG was in Hindi, I have sprinkled bits of Hindi throughout the book to highlight its relationship with the movie. If you are unfamiliar with Hindi, I have given the English translations of the Hindi statements as footnotes.
I hope this book will help you find a healthy balance between blind belief and blind disbelief.
Chaitanya Charan Das
Oh My God " Re answering the Question's "
The Bollywood movie Oh My
God! fittingly exposed the arrogance and hypocrisy of godmen. It also made
several important points about specific religious practices as well as the
generic role of religion in society.
Oh My God! QA blog will respond to those points by answering all the popping questions daily like,
• Do we need middlemen to approach God?
• Does God help atheists and oppose godmen?
• Is religion made by man or by God?
• When we don’t chant “Papa, papa”, why should we chant “Krishna, Krishna”?
• Does religion make people violent or helpless?
• When God is present everywhere, why should we worship him in temple stone images?
Discover sound principles drawn from the time-honored Vedic wisdom-tradition that will equip you to separate the good from the bad in today’s religious world. Presented here in a logical and lucid progression, these principles will change the way you look at religion and at life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)