My Kannada-skill excuses!

For a long time, I've maintained "I'm an Indian" as an answer to questions like "Are you a Maharashtrian?" or "are you a South Indian?" The obvious response I used to get at times was "pataa hai... So am I". So I started a lighter tone of answers, later on: "I'm a Canadian!"

Calling myself a Kannadiga causes people to wonder, more so from the time I ended in Bangalore, *really*? People have quite often asked me why my Kannada sounds different. Well, thats because I speak Havyaka (dialect). Thats an easy answer to give when there are no Havyakas around me. Unfortunately, they too think that my Kannada is quite different! An unconvincing answer, then, is... "thats because I was born and brought up in Bombay; people usually speak Marathi out there. I can speak Marathi better than my mother-tongue". And things like "I haven't officially studied Kannada".

As an aside, I've gotten away... er, tried to get away, by saying: "English is not my first language" at other times.

Is nearer truer?

I remember an argument from somewhere that Krishna is more famous than Rama because...
(i) the former lived among the masses, whilst the latter was a king and didn't actually come down to the level of the masses, as in, Krishna was *near* to all the people.

I say I agree with it. If you look at the nearness considering the yuga system, you may even say that...
(ii) Krishna was *nearer* because he's portrayed in the dwaapar yuga that went just before this kali yuga, in comparison to Rama, who is pictured in the treta yuga, prior to dwaapar.

According to modern day logic or age-old Chaarvaak philosophy, whatever is proved by the five senses is true and they discard the brahma sathya jagat mithyaa principle. This could arguably be because of what is near (the senses) is real. If I base the same argument and say that if being nearer is truer, then whatever my senses have outside and near them is less true, than what they have inside.

So looking within, I would argue that the God within my body is the nearest and hence, truer than what atheists claim!

Clear Channel's Power 99 racism

Clear Channel Communications Inc (CCU) that owns Power 99 radio channel aired a racist recording in Philadelphia some time early this month. The target of racism was India and its call centres that are taking work off the US. The recording staged the radio jockey call a company for some sales support of a product pertaining to the hair of his six year old kid. This call was routed to a call centre in India and this somehow made the RJ furious! He went on to abuse the lady at the receiving end.

Unfortunately for the RJ, he assumed that the Indian community wouldn't react at all! Perhaps, he didn't even know the size of the vast Indian race. There were many a ways that we all reacted. Some that took steps to drive home the point to CCU that suspending the RJ for one day is not enough are below.

The full transcript can be found on:

or heard at:

Letters sent are at:

Other news:

I, for one, like the new age approach of hitting stocks, where it hurts most. US companies understand business language the best. So what Aakrosh has done is to talk in CCU's (mind you, not RJ's) language. There's a good amount of finding that went in to see who are the top investors in CCU and what other holdings do they have. Putting pressure on these top investors to pressurize CCU, in turn, to give an unconditional apology is a good way. Let the RJ and the likes know their boundaries so that they keep their cheap vulgarity on their own side.

In case you didn't read the articles/links above, Indians, as a first step:
Please don't use Citibank credit or debit cards on February 10, 2005, in case CCU doesn't give an apology by January 31, 2005.

Nobody's above the law?

Nobody's above the law! Ha! How convenient a statement to make when *wanting* to frame someone. At other times, there are *wants* that contradict the above statement.

How? Madam Jaya has gone bonkers, thats how. Well, I never for once doubted her insanity anyway. Still, to clarify what I said, check how the TN dictatorship govt had the seer's case go.

--at Diwali midnight, Jaya gets the Kanchi acharya jailed, saying nobody's above the law.
--makes sure that he doesn't get bail in TN high court, dittoing above saying.
--slaps some more dirty rotten cases against him to complicate matters.
--then has some 25 odd people arrested to involve the case so much as to project that the case is going to take endlessly long time.


--TN court sanctioned bail in assault case (one of the zillion odd cases that the acharya was being framed in)
--During the apex court hearing, seer's advocate made a point that the acharya won't go to the mutt (even if he's needed, the junior acharya could conduct the poojas since thankfully he hadn't been arrested yet... no pun intended by him!) till the charge-sheet is filed (ages still, I guess) against prosecution's charging that the seer would tamper evidence if given bail and allowed to return to the mutt! Supreme court okays bail in murder case and also warns the police about the *manner* of their investigation.

What happened then...
--Acharya didn't go to Kanchi mutt; he went to Kalavai instead.
--Jaya got the junior acharya arrested!
--she also claimed that they do not want to take over the mutt against political party charges.

What's happening now...
The mutt's cheques are not getting cleared because the accounts have been sealed! (not taking over the mutt?)
--Jaya *wants* the apex court to ask the seer to shift out of the four southern states of India. What she said is: His presence will dampen their (witnesses) spirits". (Well, the fact is that while the acharya was in Vellore prison, the most violent of the jailed also had gone sober by his mere "presence").
--Jaya also *wants* the supreme court to delete the parts from the bail order that criticize the investigation!

Now, does Jaya think the Supreme Court is her TN court or her maikaa? And they all used to say: nobody's above the law!!! Well, am I missing a point here: who's the jagatguru???

Is moksha mithyaa?

A friend of mine came up with a question: Is liberation an illusion? I'll interpret that as Is moksha mithyaa? since mithyaa is inappropriately translated by many as illusion eg. from brahma sathya jaganmithyaa. So actually the question, in English, may be read as: is liberation unreal?

Here's how the discussion went:

me: do you mean that whether our search for liberation is unreal or liberation itself is unreal? For former, yes, for latter, no!
he: what if one quits everything in search of liberation and finds out 30 yrs hence that it wasn't a good decision?
me: On reaching liberation... as in, it was a waste of time and wasn't worth it? Or do you mean that one doesn't find anything even after a painstakingly long time/era?
he: not like that... say, there's nothing like liberation!
me: that means that either there is something like that and that person didn't reach it being unqualified or less of efforts, or else, having reached it (something that he calls liberation) felt that his earlier way of life was better!

Say, renouncing state X, one goes to state Y (whatever this state Y is). If he feels state X was better after reaching Y, that means even today, before renouncing X, he fears that his worries may be true. In which case, there isn't enough faith in Y. Lets say, hypothetically, that X is thought of as better on reaching Y, then that person thinks that there's no liberation (in the Y state) and leaving only two possible things:
i) X was better, he was blissful there itself. That is the real goal which he'd already reached. Probably, the chaarvaak way.
ii) There is nothing, neither liberation, nor anything else. As in, no state, *shunya*. Perhaps, this is what is the Buddhist way is. In which case, his renouncing X was right and then, he needs to renounce Y too!

And in either case, it would be the belief about the path/destination. So there is no finding out the right destination without treading the path.

This discussion continued afterwards and it went thus...

me: another thing I want to say is that after reaching Y, the person (bringing out such doubts) has the same tools at his disposal to argue (mind/intellect, etc) that he had on the onset at X.
he: No, these tools will disappear with the negation of each.
me: in which case, as per vedaanta, he's on the right path, leaving him no reason to doubt the path.
he: with the faith/belief that we talk of, a realised
person can make the claims about the right path and people will follow that. But how does one explain his belief to others if he's a student, and convince others that he's doing the right thing?
me: who does he have to prove? To others, right? This other person will say "you're wrong". Thats his *belief* in *his* right path. He can't prove it either. So our sanyaasi is as right or wrong as the other and we have to make our own choice with the belief. Thats why AdI ShankarA talks of qualifications of a sanyaasi for jnaana yoga. For others, he does suggest karma/bhakti yoga for purification. The process is quite logical even to the existing set of tools we have for deduction.