October Paper

THIS PAPER HAS CONTENT RELATED MOSTLY TO HINDUISM OR SANATAN DHARM. IN THE FUTURE, MORE CONTENT RELATED TO OTHER RELIGIONS MIGHT BE ADDED.

~

Mantras (‘hymns’) should in most cases, not be recited in tune. (i.e. not in sur). Sometimes, the chanting or ‘tuneful’ utterance of mantras sounds nice or appropriate too.

Still, generally, the above holds.

Mantras should be uttered in a calm, dignified, controlled and temperate manner.

If the activity is done with the right mentality, then occasionally, would be manifest, the devotion and namrata (respect and gentleness) of the person reciting.

[ Note : The utterance of mantra – at least occasionally – would be with feeling, and of course, with understanding of the meaning and import of the verses ].

_

Too much inflection or ‘tone’ should not be laid on the recital. Generally, a mantra should be uttered in a relatively ‘plain’ manner.

Sincerely.

At times, on some occasions, some ‘variety’ in the manner of utterance may be there.

_

If a person is alone, then it is desirable that she/he recite the mantra quietly i.e. silently.

(-i.e. if she/he is the only person engaged in the religious activity).

It will be more like ‘thinking’ or remembering the hymn/verse.

Sometimes, even a group of people may think/’speak’ a mantra silently. -That is, in their own minds. – Say, some portions of the entire puja (procedure/anushthan/vidhi), on a given day.

~

Needless to say, every person who has love and devotion (bhakti) for God, and for the sanatan dharmik system, and is trying sincerely to conduct the puja/ceremony well, may conduct it.

– she/he has the right. Anyone can be a priest (purohit).

Of course, this includes ladies, minors, and persons of all ethnicities and occupations. Ideally, this is not necessary to state. Even the thought (i.e. -any questioning of or idea opposite to it) would not occur to oneself.

_

In a puja, a mantr should generally be recited once (only) at a given time.

That is, a mantra should not be repeated consecutively, generally speaking.

Though up to one-third of the times, if deemed appropriate or necessary for some reason, a mantra may be repeated. In such cases, at one time, a mantra may be repeated three times or two.

This is not a matter of a hard-and-fast rule, but desirable. This is how it should be.

However, parts of a whole mantra – like a phrase which occurs at the conclusion or final portion of a given mantra, and which is repeated consecutively three times – as this author believes, happens not uncommonly in pujas done conventionally – may be uttered more than once consecutively.

(Perhaps an example is ‘shanti‘ or ‘swasti‘).

(This author may not have adequate knowledge regarding this).

NOTE : Mental recital of the gayatri mantra in the morning or evening daily, is obviously an exception. Here too, sometimes it may be tried that the mantra is mentally recited or ‘remembered’ once (only).

~

IMPORTANT : In the matter of every puja, every religious function/activity, in all regions of India or abroad, the traditional way (or method), must be known and preserved. –Even if it is not practised generally by those who believe in the October Paper.

One reason for this is to guard against possible inadvertent errors (subjective or objective) in the Paper itself.

Of course, there are many good and sacred features in the traditional way, and the way/system in the October Paper is largely or mostly based on the former.

~

As offerings, leaves, water etc. may be included.

Flowers, fruit or grains may be used.

It is not desirable that cooked food be used as offerings or part of ceremonies. (Especially food with spices etc.). Although plain cooked rice may be used. Yogurt, honey, a mix of milk and a cereal powder (with or without sugar) may be used. Sweets (relatively plain, though it may often be of good quality) may be used.

Articles like cloth may be used. (- piece of cloth or fabric, not an apparel like a shirt).

~

Respectfully speaking, expressions like ‘koti koti pranam‘ or ‘shat koti naman‘ ought not to be used. One pranam is good. If heartfelt.

Of course, persons who use the above expression might also have genuine bhav; it may be that they are following in the footsteps of a custom.

~

God (only) should be worshipped, offered puja.

No other entity – for instance a ‘holy man’, ‘guru’, object, bull or a mythical/idealized conception of it, snake etc. – should be worshipped or should be the subject of puja. -Aradhana, upasana.

(Though some times, Sri Nandi may be offered namaskar, with shraddha).

This is in some cases may be a little in the ‘diffuse’ region, for example arati is done of God, and also of a respected or welcome person. -one’s ancestors who have passed.

Of course, pranam or yuktkar ‘namaskar’ is done to/of god, and also elders or respected persons. Laying of flowers in front of statues and portraits of elders or great people, or applying tika to their forehead on special days.

And this is all normal and right.

However, certain other rituals or rites should not be performed to a human statue or any other entity. For example sounding the puja ghanti, reciting mantras to them and certain other activities.

So called ‘kumari puja‘, done at least in some parts of West Bengal, respectfully speaking should not be done. The very idea should not occur to a person.

In a temple, the statue of a person (whether of a real-life person or a figure of representation/imagination) should not be in the central region or garbhgrih (sanctum).  It should not be in a more central or exalted position, or of a comparable size, relative to a deity or the principal divinity.

-Unless it be in the form of a bhakt e.g. Krishn and Sudama.

Respectfully and politely speaking, if a person has the right awareness in this matter, then he/she would understand it naturally, by himself/herself, ‘as a whole’. It would not be necessary to describe such principles in detail and explicitly. (This is not said in any wrong sense).

~

The October Paper believes in the concept of advait-vad.

In the Upanishadic thought that God or the potential for God is present within a human being.

Every human being. (This is the ideal concept. Out of possible practical necessity, one might also say – Hopefully – ).

It believes in the concept of ‘tat tvam asi’.

(As said by sage Aruni to Shwetketu. But that short story is for another time).

This is one way of thinking or one ‘aspect’. A valid and good one.

But advait vad does not mean self-love or aggrandizement.

It includes love and shraddha for god.

The concept is still there. (Of course).

~

It is the dharmik, moral thing of course, not to cause harm or distress to any sentient being. – And not disturb or harm plants unreasonably.

Ideally, a person should be vegetarian.

-He/she should not consume meat, fish etc. However, non-fertilized eggs are alright.

Milk of course is alright.

Let it be remembered, even the ‘keeping’ and transportation of animals meant for meat, in the real world, generally causes tremendous sufferings to them. -Not only the instant or few moments when one is being killed.

Though, theoretically, an animal may be ‘kept’ and slain perfectly painlessly and without any mental or physical distress – all through its life. Or minimally so. There are some such abattoirs in the West actually, I believe.

(- Although the very sound of the above paragraph was to this author aversive and wrong).

(Although, perhaps it would be practically necessary to mention here that – as a matter of fact – this author himself has given custom to such establishments at times. He has taken non-veg food about once a month, though fish much more frequently. He once became vegetarian for about 6 months. Then discontinued it not because he felt he was missing out but because it was being rather inconvenient for certain reasons. But in spirit, he is a vegetarian. (Of course, one should be serious about actually being vegetarian)).

However, certain other considerations must be taken into account.

If a human being – in the growing years at least -needs animal food for better brain development (so intelligence and other mental faculties), and/or better immunity and/or greater strength and fitness (during certain relevant periods of a populace’s history, this might make a critical difference), and there is a substantial probability that the exclusion of meat would cause some serious harm to those humans, then would it be right to exclude meat or to include it? This is not a rhetorical or ‘suggestive’ question. I feel we all need to delve upon it.

For one, in my schoolbook, I had read about ‘First Class-‘ and ‘Second Class Proteins’.

https://www.fullstopfitness.co.uk/single-post/2018/04/02/first-class-protein-vs-second-class-protein

https://biology.homeomagnet.com/classification-of-proteins/

https://www.reference.com/world-view/first-class-second-class-proteins-3665ee504df2ba55

https://planetherbs.com/research-center/diet-articles/protein/

Fish – especially of the carp variety – contains large amounts of unsaturated fatty acids (omega 6 and omega 3). (Can synthetic PUFA be there, like insulin and antibiotics)?

https://veggieadvisor.com/health/protein-sources-for-vegetarians/

_

One thing is certain : as it seems to this author, there is no serious necessity for the consumption of meat for an individual after his/her last child is born and nursed. So this principle should be followed.

(What about chicken stew for an elderly convalescing patient who would benefit greatly from it? Again, I am genuinely asking these questions; not trying to lead the reader anywhere).

Whenever practicable, ‘cultured meat’ or artificially grown (not derived from the killing of a living being) meat must be partaken of.

It is a heartening development of the recent times. Made possible by the application of Science. There should be more research, massively funded and involving the best resources, some of the best brains to make artificial meat more affordable (at present it is rather costly). It would require production at a mass scale and economic methods.

(I believe it is already palatable and safe).

_

One’s diet should not include onion and garlic. It should generally – and if not too much trouble, always – be plain. It should not contain much spice or oil.

Diet should of course be healthy and nutritious. Food may often or generally be palatable or appetizing.

I have often felt that some kinds of sweets (Indian mishtann, cakes and pies of other societies) are part of culture. They are a part of one’s childhood memories. However, for health and longevity reasons, a person should have sweets only in modest amounts and occasionally, after age 32 or so. Say, during festivals or family gatherings.

_

On religious or auspicious days, for example on the days of puja (e.g. janmashtami, the five days of durga puja) and on a birthday or wedding, there should be satwik i.e. vegetarian food in the home. (-Or wherever one may be).

~

The Ved is a sacred book of sanatan dharm. (A primary text). It contains thoughts and precepts of goodness, purity and nobility.

It is a respectable, high and pure. We love it and it is our own.

As the concept, in spirit, this is how it is. Perfect, on the whole. -In all parts.

However, the above is a concept. A good concept or imagination, but it does not correspond entirely with some facts as they stand now.

Some contents of the Ved – as we know it today – as a matter of fact – are of a ‘mistaken’ nature. An ‘erroneous’ or ‘not desirable’ nature.

With all respect, love and own-ness (apnapan, bhav) for the book, in the concept of October Paper, the above kind of contents are thought to be not part of the Ved.

This is a well-considered and responsible thing to say, and not an upstart, immature position.

For example, in the October Paper, the part of the Purush Sukt (in the Tenth Mandal i.e. Book 10, unit or rik 12) which says that certain people arose from certain parts of the cosmic, ‘original’ being, divinity, the Purush, is not recognized as a part of the Ved or sanatan dharm/Hinduism. We completely and seriously disagree with it. (-Both the literal text and any potential implication or connotation). Respectfully and humbly speaking, this part should not have been imagined, put in writing or included in Rishi Vyas’s compilation at all.

For certain (other) reasons, this author respectfully and humbly thinks that the first pad (line) of unit 8 and unit 9 and the part of ‘thousand feet’ (unit 1) of the same sukt should not have been there.

At the same time, unit 13 of the Sukt is beautiful, deep and evocative. It carries a sense of loftiness and purity.

_

Ideally, it would not have been mentioned specifically or separately, but if practically necessary –

There is mention of naree rishis and ‘shudr‘ rishis (for example Sri Kavash) in the Vedas.

NOTE : This author does not agree with the use of the term ‘shudr’. They are simply members of some social groups in India. As there are many social groups or ethnic communities in India.

I believe at multiple places in the shruti (a collection of sacred texts which includes the Ved) it is stated that it is character and conduct which make a learned (gyani) and respected person, and not birth.

Hindus venerate Ram and the Ramayan.

Ram is their idol and hero. We know how he interacted with Guhak (with aalingan – embrace) and Shavari.

If I remember the epic correctly, Lakshman took exception to the fact that some people had obstructed their path; perhaps he had shown some anger. Ram remonstrated with him, argued counter to him, and set a different example. In Hinduism, Ram is considered maryada purushottam (for many reasons).

Respectfully and fraternally speaking, let us not make any mistake in understanding this religion.

~

There are two meanings which the word brahman has :

(This is different from brahman, the universal or supreme soul, the ultimate reality); both the vowel sounds in this word are the same – the one in ‘sun’. In the preceding word, the first sound is as in ‘far’).

One, being a brahman is a state of mind and a way of life. It refers to a person having a certain spiritual nature, a certain ‘culture’ and personality.

Brahmanical qualities are kindness and softness (above all), purity/decency, piety, interest in learning and religious activities, happily and without any thought of recompense – wishing to share learning and wisdom (vidya and gyan), ascetic, plain or austere living, a total lack of anger or ‘revenge mentality’, patience, a love for peace and quiet.

(Though she/he would also have a sense of justice).

Sarcasm, snide-ness, deviousness or conspiring, calumny are more wrong than anger. These are big ‘errors’.

_

We may remember Tulsidas’s line – a pandit (learned and wise person) is he who has love in him.

_

Everyone can be and should be a brahman.

Everyone should think of himself/herself as a brahman.

(Of course, being a hermit or a monk/nun would be generally practically avoidable). The more valuable qualities and goodness of mind an individual has, the more important it is that he/she live and work in society, and start a family.

But if possible, one may spend one or two years of his/her life like that.

Most importantly, one may engage in pure and peaceful living, yog and dhyan, Ish-chinta and adhyatmik chinta, while being a full-fledged householder.

Indeed, taking care of and spending time with family is more important than the above (though they need not be compared as such. They constitute a composite whole).

The reader may think – Then, isn’t being a brahman the same as being a good and enlightened human being, a dharmik person? Of course.

Another meaning of the word is of course a social group or community.

But any social group may declare itself to be ‘brahman’. Of course, it is their freedom. No one else can obstruct it.

The group which chronologically first or earliest called itself so, might be known as ‘adi brahman’, and an other as ‘naveen brahman’. Other terms or pre-fixes/suffixes may be used, as one wishes. (Perhaps, for example, ‘nirmal brahman’, ‘paavan brahman’ or ‘uday or divakar brahman’).

Or one may simply think of oneself as brahman.

~

At the same time, every social group or community has the moral right – indeed the moral duty – to maintain and perpetuate its distinct identity and lineage.

Otherwise it would be an injustice and a loss to humankind.

~

Needless to say, all ethnic groups of the world are of equal rights and honour, as per the concept in sanatan dharm. In some ways, humanity is one. At the same time distinct societies and cultures are a very good thing, and should exist.

-They should live in mutual love, amity and co-operation.

~

I just love a good human being. Also someone who has got ‘precious’ qualities.

[ These qualities may be unrelated to practical use ].

[ In fact, one should – and I do – love everyone, and wish that they came to/stayed on the right path ].

_

We can all live happily, freely and virtuously.

When every person is dharmik, the world would be heaven.

_

For the above, everyone need not become a ‘Hindu’.

~

Being dharmik means having pure and high thoughts. Good thoughts.

Such a way of life. Daily routine.

~

The moral or dharmik mentality implies having no desire for sensual pleasures.

[ The feel of a cool breeze on the face and hands, the taste of a good flavour of ice-cream, are good experiences (of a pure, sensory nature).

They are unrelated to ‘sensual or instinctual pleasures’.

_

Even if such thoughts occasionally pass across the consciousness, the person would be indifferent to them. -Or if necessary, exercize self-control, keep out or void out such thoughts.

_

This is simply a part of the right mentality, cultured mentality. And not characteristic of any particular school of thought or belief-system.

~

Of course, the ethnic group of a person should not necessarily determine his occupation. It should not be necessary to state this.

If there is any content in any religious text which indicates the contrary, then the right-minded persons of the religious community should disagree with it, for practical reasons- may make it generally known, and not recognize such a content as part of the religion.

~

It is an idea that there should be the books of religion (or of Sanskrit or Indian languages) in their right form. In their good and ideal form completely. (-in all parts).

Improvements – if possible – may be made.

Portions of them, which are/may be ‘mistaken’ or not right, should be excluded. -If necessary, appropriate, good substitute content should be created and inserted in the place.

Of course, the original or ‘conventional’ version of the present, should be preserved (in certain sections of libraries, archives). But in general circulation, and to be promoted especially among young people, should be the right version. -This is what should be; it is not being said that this should be imposed or forced.

Such ‘parimargit’ (i.e. where the rough edges or errors have been rectified) versions of all our main books (granths) – whether shruti or smriti – should be prepared.

They should be available everywhere.

_

As an example, it may be that in the Ramayan..

Seeta devi came to hear of – by chance, on a few occasions – that there were being circulated certain imputations about her, by certain people in the city who were of wrong mentality. In the beginning she bore it with patience. Also she did not want to bother Ram. But over time, she was much indignated and saddened by such reprehensible rumours.

Seeta was an elevated and wise lady. She did not easily have misconceptions. She knew the right things to do. But at this time, perhaps because of her love for her family and sensitivity, she gave way to some humane missteps.

(Perhaps there was some misunderstanding with Ram; she may have mistaken his silence as disapproval or want of support).

Sri Ram had began to have some sense of what might be wrong, and was thinking of talking to Devi Sita in seclusion. But he was often indisposed due to unavoidable affairs of rule. -Taking care of the praja. Of course, his love for Seeta knew no bounds. But before he could speak to her, the unfortunate, sad thing happened – Sita chose to leave the palace and repair to the woods, meaning to be untraceable to Ram. In Bengali, it is called abhiman – not pride or ego, but a blend of being aggrieved, expecting better from a loved one and saddened.

Hence she arrived in the ashram of a rishi. Lav and Kush were born here.

In another place – Seeta voluntarily entered agnipareeksha to assuage the questions of certain people in the populace, who were wanting in the right consideration and wisdom, but were sizeable in number. -So to avoid problems for her family, for Ram, she passed through agni, which she knew would not harm her.

Though this was outrageous and deeply wrong, to be strongly opposed by all right-minded persons. (-portrayed as such).

(contd.) In a part of her mind, she was also thinking, if she had gone by brother Laskhman’s advice – though in that, she was solely moved by her kindness and regard for a mendicant, and perhaps a want of practical sense – then it would not have landed Ram and Lakshman in such trials and conflict. She was embarrassed of that (though she was a king’s daughter, and had good vivecana (judgment), overall).

The Ramayan – including the Krittivas rendition in Bengali – is a good, simple and beautiful book.

Eventually, Ram found Seeta, the misunderstanding was cleared up and they together returned to their home in Ayodhya. They gave rise to honoured and yashasvi, accomplished descendants.

They lived together in happiness for many years.

There was an element of the divine in Seeta devi. She was in origin, in part, like a deity. In a way, she was destined to go to divine company – it was ordained before her birth. One day, a deity appeared and told her that the family would be better in future, if she went to heaven now. (It is not clear why). She acquiesced. With courage and grace. Accordingly, one day, Devi Vasundhara appeared and took her in her care. She was thought to be her daughter.

Devi Seeta was a woman, a human being. An admirable person. Of goodness, dignity, of a deep and transcendental quality.

After Seeta passed on to heaven, Ram, one day soon left the kingdom to his sons and rose to heaven by entering the waters of the pavitr Sarayu river.

Partly girdled with the water, he offered his pranam to his ancestors and the holy things and god. He called upon the river to embrace him; the cream and fair spires of Ayodhya city stood witness, quietly. Thus the worldly life of Ram was ended and he rose to heaven. Seeta was there waiting for him. And his family, his parents and elders/ancestors.

A flower blown in by the wind and a faint hint of sandalwood remained in the water where the river had surrounded Ram.

The clear waters of the Sarayu waved and swirled gently in the early morning light.

~

A young person (who is of the Hindu society or wants to be Hindu), should have the upanayan ceremony by the age of eighteen, preferably by fifteen. But not before age ten, because the child has not yet developed enough to understand sufficiently of the significance of the rite/’function’).

Of course every one should. A boy. A girl. And of all ethnic groups.

The ceremony means not only rituals (which are good and we love) but a certain knowledge and understanding. And certain practices. (Though practicing the gayatri mantra and sandhya ahnik right after upanayan, for about two to three weeks, or doing it three to four times a week for one month, is adequate. Donning the upaveet -which of course anyone who has had an upanayan or perhaps even without it, may do – may be done only for one or a few months after the rite. -i.e not necessarily routinely).

Mentality and conduct are essential. It makes no sense to engage in rituals while deliberately engaging in thoughts and acts that are not right.

The upanayan ceremony also means bearing certain responsibilities. These will be elaborated upon at a later time.

~

At least because of practical necessity, the following needs to be said :

God actually is a concept or imagination. A good one. In some aspects, a very valuable one. One of the best creations of the human mind (at places, with some interactions with Nature; and at others, contemplation).

Still, it is not a realistic one. God does not actually exist.

Afterlife of any kind -unfortunately – has no evidence in favour of its existence.

I wish God and afterlife did exist. That heaven did.

_

But godliness can exist. Kindness, Truth, sacrifice do. In human minds. And in parts, in some other species too.

And that the concept of god, the imagination of godly qualities have arisen from some human minds, makes us a little more hopeful about the future.

(Though there are plenty of extremely serious problems).

The (only) essential qualities of God are that she/he is perfectly moral and good, and all-powerful.

(The latter quality is also called ‘omnipotence’, i.e. he is able to do anything if he so wills).

But this concept is incompatible with a real world where innocent, good people and children often suffer harms that are severe and irreversible. Often they simply die, suffer excruciating pain or are seriously crippled with lifelong adversities. Often good people, family and societies are devastated or destroyed, no matter how much courage and efforts they show. -While many persons of very negative character lead pretty pleasant lives. -Where Bad and Wrong are often triumphant over Good despite tremendous efforts and sacrifices by the righteous and pure people. God, if he did exist wouldn’t have let it happen or come to pass.

Philosophically and logically speaking, even seriously immoral or improper thoughts would not have occurred to anyone’s mind.

It can even be argued that even moderate or mildly negative things would not have existed. And more good, beautiful and ideal things should have existed.

We have to become God. Perhaps we should think of ourselves as god or deities or divine. (At the same time, recognize our physical limitations of course).

Human beings should try to reach a state where they are no longer restricted by the Laws of Nature.

Technology shall help in this.

Needless to say, our morals and mindset has to become like that, too.

(Practically speaking, it ‘might be a bit of an issue’ if there were to exist an omnipotent entity, but without complete morality 🙂 ). So the first must be accompanied by the second. The second, however, is independent; but it would be very good if it were accompanied by the first).

~

Sanatan dharm, leading a dharmic life, essentially includes some purely good things.

-And not only refraining from wrong things oneself or acting to prevent or neutralize negative things in the external environment.

To an ideal mind, a perfectly and naturally virtuous person, no wrong kind of thought would occur at all. It would never occur to him/her to engage in a wrong act (of thought, speech or action).

Then, being dharmik is something in addition to non-engagement in wrong.

The concept of what a dharmik way of life means has been treated with at length in the October Paper, in individual Papers like – Paper 1: Overview, Paper 5 : Person, ‘Nature’ and others.

In brief, it means good emotions and relationships, cultured persuasions and working to attain/engaging in some high goals or projects -of pure worth and substance. -something creative or constructive. (-could be making a garden or a university or research institution or academic association/club, a work of art or monument). Reading a good book.

To cultivate learning. Good/high thoughts and sensitivity.

Good thoughts and good works, and a good life is the essence of dharm.

~

One of the most important things, and an essential thing in dharm, is service to humanity. Helping people who have a problem or are suffering. If the distress is serious, then help is the highest priority in dharm.

It should be rendered as soon and as well as possible. (Of course).

One should take upon oneself the responsibility to completely resolve the matter. This follows from the basic and simple mentality of compassion, goodwill (sadiccha) and care.

~

White and saffron garments should have the same importance in religious attire. They should be worn with nearly the same frequency – as per the occasion, or simply, as one feels like.

_

Red or reddish saffron should not be worn as religious attire. (Lohit– or so called ‘raktambar‘).

~

With respect, as appropriate, and certainly with no wrong feelings :

In the iconology of Hinduism, entities like serpents, tiger-skin and similar ones, should be absent.

The use or depiction of ash should be absent or minimal.

It should be unthinkable to include entities based on reproductive body parts. -anything like ‘phallus’. Ideally, this would not have been included in this Paper at all. -Because it should not have been necessary to state this. It is only out of practical necessity.

It is not only ‘not desirable’, but wrong.

However, the above words, do not constitute an affront to or denouncement of the large number of Hindus who – perhaps out of a want of awareness – engage in religious rituals and visit places of worship containing such entities/depictions. They do not have any wrong mentality in them, respectfully and humbly speaking. But association with or engaging in such entities should cease.

(We may still visit a shiv mandir or a temple of multiple divinities, which includes – out of error – such a ‘representation’ (i.e. based on/originating from a reproductive body part). A temple is a temple. The goodness, godliness and spirituality is the same. The happiness and good feeling it gives is the same. But one should not commit circumambulation of or offer worship to a such a ‘representation’ itself).

_

One believes the Rig Ved has a verse which expresses disagreement with this practice; indicates that it is not right, a ‘mistake’.

[ NOTE : The inclusion of certain shila (e.g perhaps shaligram shila) in religious ideas or rituals, may be alright, though in small measures- if so, and as ‘ancillary’. -Mainly as a component of ‘tradition’ or some lokachar, and not religion proper.

Not meant in a wrong sense, but this author personally, till date, has found no reasons to engage in them ].

~

From childhood, this author has had the awareness, that the creature cow, has a certain place in the traditions of the Hindu community.

It is a sentimental idea may be.

I remember the pictures in Amar Chitra Katha of the child Krishna playing with cows or having one or two of them in the background or the side, in natural surroundings. (In Gokul ?). Besides a river or among trees and plants.

The life and comfort of bovines and other sentient beings (i.e. those living beings who can feel pain, mental distress, happiness etc.) are equally important, or proportionate to the degree to which a given species can feel pain or mental suffering. This is common sense.

_

The cow – according to the October Paper, i.e. according to its concept of sanatan dharm, Hinduism – is not itself sacred, any more than the human being or say a horse is. It probably should not be accorded any more care than any other creature of comparable sentience. The cow should not be a subject of worship or religious veneration. Respectfully speaking, it is a mistake to call it ‘go-mata’ from the religious doctrine point of view.

If sometimes in a literary usage or chalit manner of speaking, it is so said, it is perhaps alright. The cow may have a ‘special’ place in the Hindu religious ‘complex’, but this is not in terms of superiority to anything else. Quite a few other things have such a place.

Consumption of beef should not be done by Hindus – even if they do consume other species, but this is because of traditional and sentimental reasons, and not strictly a dharmik i.e. moral principle. If wrong, then it is no more so, than the consumption of other comparably sentient species. So perhaps a Korean, African or European Hindu may do it, if he is generally non-vegetarian.

~

When a dharmik person, a Hindu prays, he/she should simply pray. Thinking about good things. Connecting with God.

I guess, generally it is done with closed eyes and folded hands. (Or hands extending down, gathered in front). Unless there is infirmity, illness or particular weakness/fatigue, it should be done standing or sitting properly or in a good way. However the state of mind is what matters. It is the thing. The position is a side attribute or form.

One need not or should not ‘ask anything’ from God. That is not the purpose of prayer.

(One may at times, express one’s wishes to God. Or a child perhaps may communicate ‘How good it would be if -‘, ‘Please – could you – make it so?’. But this is not exactly asking for something. And certainly not anything material).

~

The thought that a puja will/may have a labh or ‘fal‘ – a material or worldly gain or benefit for the practitioner/yajman, is a mistake. One should simply forget about such ideas.

It is not the purpose of a puja.

~

God has affection for a person and would smile upon him/her.

He is kind.

~

Subjecting oneself to privations (atm-nigrah, kricch-sadhan) is an error. It has no need.

(One should rather maintain a healthy and fit body).

Occasional fasting before the completion of a puja on a given half-day (‘bela‘ in Bengali), if not potentially harmful to that particular person at the time, is alright, nice.

Respectfully speaking, keeping vrats, ‘keeping’ a shanivar or mangalvar probably need not or should not be done. I hope this well-meant and brotherly idea won’t be misunderstood.

_

The above activities, in addition, probably reduce focus from the aim of dharm. Roughly, sadachar in personal life and seva in social life. This requires hard work and planning.

They may create a mistaken notion of ‘what should be done’ or ‘what dharmic achievement is’.

~

A person should have honesty, have no malice or ill-will towards anyone, and should be trying sincerely to exercise self-control. Deliberately doing something seriously wrong is a very serious matter in dharm.

[ It is desirable that a person be of such a mind that he/she naturally always does the right thing and has only right or good thoughts. -He/she does not need to exert any conscious effort to avoid wrong thoughts. Can one from childhood be like that or reach such a state through practice/endeavour (anusheelan)? ].

~

Pilgrimage – or travelling in holy places – is itself good, and desirable to do a few times in life. In a relatively relaxed and ‘normal’ manner.

-Perhaps even with a component of travel in it. There is nothing wrong in that.

[ NOTE : According to the concept of dharm, all places are equally holy or we should make it so.

One need not be in a particular place or another to experience spiritualism, pavitrata (purity), felicity or benediction.

Many of us – hopefully all – have felt our homes to be like that ].

~

This author heard a beautiful line recently from a pravachankari (spiritual speaker) : Satya-yug is not going to come (by itself), we have to bring it about.

(I do not know the name of the lady from whose internet/television program I heard this).

Satya yug : traditional Hindu belief. ‘the age of Truth’.

When everything was/is as it should be. When the times, the state of affairs were simple. -uncomplicated. When people were honest, decent, gentle.

When good always triumphed eventually over wrong.

The very cosmic/’natural’ order, divine providence was such that people could rely upon the above.

An imaginary time in the past.

By the way, in the purans (Hindu legends/’mythology’), satya yug is said to have been much longer than the modern era (kali yug) or other subsequent ones (e.g. dwapar yug).

FOOTNOTES, DETAILS :

A differing view : https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007/full

_

Ideally, it would not be necessary to state it, but : it should be unthinkable to harm animals, and that too as part of a religious ritual. (So called ‘bali‘). This is not only not desirable, it is absolutely and extremely against the concept of dharm.

The right kind of items – for example, vegetarian food only – should be there as prasad or as bhog to god.

_

The attire of a purohit / pujari should be proper and temperate. For example, for a male priest or religious functionary, if his upper body is free of garment, the lower garment should be above the level corresponding to the navel. For a female priest or functionary, the usual or standard proper attire should be there.

_

It is said that depictions of serpents in the iconography of sanatan, should not be there. Exception : the episode of Kaliya daman in Mahabharat (or is it in the Harivansh or a Puran?) which is of course part of the story. The nag who held his hood over Krishn and Vasudev as they were crossing the river (I heard the story from my grandmother, but have now forgotten some of the names; I need to re-visit it).

This author has seen, what he remembers as ‘alright’ or sober depictions of Vishnu over the Ocean, on a seat of a nag (Sheshnag?), his head having the canopy of its hood. Where the serpent – the reader may find this unexpected – is kind of inconspicuous and ‘inoffensive’. -Which is relatively acceptable.

But on the whole such depictions should not be there. It is ‘undesirable’.

Of course, this does not imply any want of respect for the serpent species, or the religious beliefs of many persons in India where snakes are a constituent.

_

The part of the conventional Ramayan, where supposedly, it is written that Sri Ram said to Devi Seeta, after having defeated Ravan and rescuing her, that ‘she may now go anywhere she wished; the ten dishas (directions) are open to her. He had rescued her to protect the honour of the raghu kul, and not for her as such’, should be excluded in the new, right Ramayan.

This does not seem like something an avatar or an ideal man would do.

Of course, right-minded Hindus, who love and respect the religion, to whom, it is their own – do not agree with this statement. They do not think that this was right. -including the traditional ones. At the same time, they respect Ram. They just do not count it, -take it into account in their conception of the Ramayan and the sanatan ‘legends’. They have their own ideal concept of Hinduism – in which only the good parts of the ‘total complex’, is present, unsullied by the actual erroneous or unprincipled parts. This is the right thing to do. According to the October Paper, this idea is being institutionalized. Converted into tangible reality. This is a natural and desirable/right thing to do.

The new, right (‘version of’) Ramayan (but actually not a ‘version’, it would be the one true Ramayan, and Mahabharat and other works) would appear familiar and comfortable. The ‘old’ feel would be maintained.

For ‘culture’- related reasons, certain other portions of the Ramayan (and many of the Purans and the Mahabharat) should be changed. For example, it was that Devi Seeta expressed her liking for a beautiful deer which had fleeted across in front of their hut in the forest. Ram of his own accord had set upon catching it and bringing it back to her.

(He would have done it anyway – even in Ayodhya – but since Seeta had accompanied Ram to the forest to share in his fate, giving up the safety and security of home, indeed the royal palace, he was especially sorry at times of her hardships, and wanted to do something special to bring her joy).

Seeta didn’t ask for it. She was equally happy with Ram, in the city or forest or anywhere. She was a large-hearted and lofty-minded person.

Perhaps it should be chronicled that it was a beautiful or fair deer, or a golden one. But not ‘made of gold’.

On the other hand, I love the part of Ramayan where Ram knows of the existence of Seeta in the rishi’s ashram through the valour of Lav and Kush. -who challenge and defeat a group of soldiers of Ram and his senior army officers, who had appeared there by chance. They are so impressive/excellent that eventually Ram has to come himself. And they defeat Ram too. (Perhaps they were just equal to one another, but also Ram had an idea of who they might be and this held back his hand a little). And they are united again. This is a good story.

And the boys go back to their kingdom’s home as princes.

This author also likes the representation of Ram – in childhood and in the forest – in satwik and muni-like dress, plain saffron robes. A top knot. Rather than royal garments with jewels and crown.

_

Religion is a very valuable part of human Culture. Its thoughts, creations are important.

(Even though god, miracles – unfortunately – do not exist).