Should thoughts, speech, writing & actions be free? Or should there be limits? If there are limits, should they be enforced? If yes, who should enforce it?
Every deliberate action first starts with a thought. If we recognize that a thought is bad, what should we do? Should we feel guilty & repent for the thought, as some religions suggest? Will that stop bad thoughts? What about the Orwellian double-think, where we are indoctrinated to accept contrary beliefs at the same time?
It is the nature of the mind to never take responsibility for the actions that it spurs us to take. It feeds pride when its action succeeds. If it fails, it will not take responsibility, it will blame you instead. Yoga teaches us to let our mind roam freely, and take a step back & observe our own mind without judgment. Our thoughts should be free.
Let us examine speech next. One can argue that civil speech should be free. However, there are ideologies that prohibit any criticism or blasphemy, however civil it may be, with brutal punishments. Such actions result in the imprisonment or death of critics. This has resulted in the destruction of universities & libraries (eg: Nalanda, Takshahila, Alexandria) which resulted in dark ages for the affected civilizations, whose contributions to the world came to an abrupt halt. It is interesting to note that Samskritam, a rich language which requires sentences to explain some words, has no direct word for blasphemy. It appears that ancient Indians were free to criticize anything & everything. The concept of free speech has been rediscovered & treasured by today's societies that do have it. In the Tamil Puranic Thiruvilaiyaadal story, Nakkeeran, a poet, a Bhaktha (devotee) of Shiva, states that a poem composed by Shiva as a response to a riddle is flawed, and he insists that it is flawed even though Shiva reveals himself & pretends anger. Shiva burns him with his fiery third eye of knowledge, later praises him & restores him back to life. The moral is clear. You shouldn't hesitate to question even God. Even God is not above question.
Civil free speech is desirable. How about uncivil free speech? Can I insult & abuse? Something sacred to others, that can cause mental hurt? To quote a famous criticism of absolute free speech, can I shout fire in a crowded place? Initially, it looks like the answer is No.
There has been a logical analysis on this. However, who determines what is an insult or an abuse? Who determines if something inappropriate was said? If you give this power to any one entity (eg: government), that entity will gradually start shifting boundaries on what is abusive & what is not, until speech is totally curbed. No entity should have the powers to define what is abusive or not. Free speech should be legally absolute, including the right to insult & abuse. You are always welcome to insult & abuse back. Society can set its own standards on what's acceptable.
So, should I now go ahead insulting & abusing anything I don't agree with? In the Anushasana parva of the Mahabharatha, Bhishma tells Yudhishtira: Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah (non-cruelty is the highest Dharma). In Patanjali's Ashta-anga Yoga, the first anga (limb) is Yama. The first Yama is Ahimsa. Ahimsa is not just physical cruelty. It is also mental cruelty. As a moral individual goal, try not to hurt anyone or anything by word or deed.
What about actions? Actions are easier. Any harmful & cruel action must be addressed by society.
What does all of this have to do with Sabarimala?
Among the millions of Hindu temples, six temples have restrictions on women while five have restrictions on men. The deity of Ayyappan is himself worshiped in multiple forms (including married forms such as in Acchan Kovil) in various temples without restrictions. There are specific stories & traditions associated with the Sabarimala Ayyappan temple where only men, young girls & older women voluntarily observe a 41 day Vritam (austerity) abstaining from meat, alcohol & sex, wearing black clothes & no footwear and sleeping on the floor before entering the shrine. The sacred offerings to be made at the end of the trip should be packed by the women members of the family.
The petitioners, journalists, media, government, police & judiciary indulged in an unnecessary intervention of this tradition causing immense anguish to the men & women devotees of this shrine. This was a deliberate act of Himsa (cruelty). Further, the right to pray as ruled by the court was interpreted by atheistic & non-Hindu radical feminist activists as a right to desecrate. Purely to make a political statement and get covered by media, without observing the 41 day Vritam, eating meat, drinking alcohol, not abstaining from sex, sleeping on comfy beds, wearing footwear, lacking devotion, they converged on the temple with full police protection. While devotees fell on their feet asking them to abstain, they can be seen flippantly walking past them. This was an act of Himsa. These steps were legal, but not moral.
Is having sex in front of the deity (as an activist posted) okay? Is taking a used sanitary napkin in the sacred offerings to the deity fine? Can this be considered freedom of expression?
At this point, these actions move away from freedom of expression into the realm of vandalism. Freedom of expression is desirable. Vandalism is not.
May Lord Ayyappa bless all of us with good sense and freedom. Swamiye Sharanam Ayyappa.
Part 2: https://vedham.blogspot.com/2018/11/sabarimala-debate-analysis.html
No comments:
Post a Comment