The Art of Living or Hating?
The website for the “Art of Living Foundation” quotes its founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar as saying “If everybody in society lives in the present moment, if we are able to accept people as they are, there will be no problems and no strife”. I enjoy reading quotes from the so-called gurus, spiritual and religious leaders from all walks of society. Their thoughts make you feel good and simplify things for the reader. But in very many cases we humans cannot follow them because they are not practical.
We cannot live in the present moment if we know that our house is going to be foreclosed by the banks in a week. We have to think of future contingencies. We cannot accept people as they are because human beings are very capable of lying, cheating and causing harm to others. We have to be skeptical and trust has to be earned. Therefore, our past history and the future have a direct impact on our “present moment”.
Organizations like the Art of Living (AOL) are not only popular in India but are becoming extremely popular in the West. Many in the West are growing tried of religion and they feel that exploring “spirituality” is the solution (It is actually very common to hear Americans saying that they are not religious but are spiritual). I have a hard time separating the two. I feel that they are very much interconnected and spirituality requires a belief in faith as religion does.
In a recent statement published in many Indian newspapers Sri Sri Ravi Shanker made several controversial statements regarding M.F. Husain. Overall I felt that the Ravi Shankar’s statements against Husain were very mean spirited. Ravi Shankar should know better than to kick a person who is already down. Husain is a very well established and renounced artist who is facing very difficult times at the ripe old age of 92. What do we have to gain by knocking him down further?
Shouldn’t a person like Ravi Shanker who has a very big following try and bring people together? I would have become one of his followers myself if he created an environment of reconciliation whereby M.F. Husain can come back to India and spend his remaining years in his homeland rather than spend it in the Middle East as a citizen of Qatar.
But what surprised me was that instead of creating a peaceful situation and reducing the “temperature” around the issue Ravi Shanker in fact states that “No one has ever sculpted Rama and Sita as nude. Creative expression is always welcome. No country has been as liberal as India. Any nude woman could have been painted by him but calling the women Sita, Lakshmi and Saraswati shows his perversion and hatred. Will MF Husain show the same creativity and the same spirit with Islamic heroes and would he, then, be able retain his Qatari citizenship? Double standards, bias and hatred do not go well with men of excellence”.
India is the land that gave birth to ancient texts like the Kama Sutra. Based on tradition the transmission of Kama Shastra is said to be made by Nandi (the sacred bull and Lord Shiva’s gatekeeper) who overhead the lovemaking between Shiva and Parvati and recorded it for the greater benefit of mankind. Our temples and other places of worship do include nude or semi-nude paintings and statues. We offer our prayers to the Shiva Linga. Sita, Lakshmi and Saraswati are common Indian names. How can such a name show an individuals perversion and hatred?
One of the most common arguments used against Husain is why he paints Hindu deities in the nude but not gods of other religions (Husain has said in the past that his intention was not to paint gods). But when we ask this question one of our assumptions is that Husain is a Muslim. We do not know that. He might have done it for shock value, he might be more trained in Hindu art and not in Islamic art or he might have felt that the Hindu society is more open to such forms of art than others. But we simply cannot assume he did so because of hatred or some sort of perversion.
But before we point the finger at somebody and accuse them of spewing religious hatred we should ask ourselves whether religion is important to us. For those like me who are skeptical Husain is just another painter (whose paintings I do not particularly like). This becomes an issue of religion only if you believe that segregating people based on religion is important to you.
Ravi Shanker is wrong when he is accusing Husain of double standards, bias and hatred. Husain has been very consistent as an artist and in his beliefs in freedom of expression. It is Ravi Shanker who is biased and has double standards. He has created an organization that transcends all religions but he himself is limited by his own religious views. He sees Husain as a Muslim first and not as a human being.
It is time to remind Ravi Shankar about one of his own sayings: “Drop all the divisions (of the mind), altogether. This is what is holding you back from enlightenment. This is what is holding you back from your very nature. Drop those right now“.
We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them – Charles Caleb Colton
Related posts:
- Is Shiv Sena a Threat to India?
- Seniors in India Should Have a Living Will
- Terrorists Have No Caste, Creed or Religion?
- Swami Nityananda: Tantric Yoga to Tantric Sex
- Senior Living for Gays in India
Category: Culture & Religion
I agree that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar seems to be showing a new angle to his Art of Living. I’ve just written about it on my blog – “Inclusiveness in Indian theatre contrasts with a guru’s intolerance over MF Husain” – http://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com/
Welcome John and thank you for the feedback. I did read the article and I will follow your blog as much as I can.
very well written and argued
we are all hypocrites…one rule for us, another for others!…one who preaches love and tolerance should not preach hatred.
I am happy Hussain chose to go away…I hope he goes on painting and be known in history as a painter from Qatar…that will serve the hardliners right.
Thank you Nalini. Ravi Shankar is a hypocrite among other things.
I don’t think Sri Sri is wrong at all. Hindus always think it is secular to hate their own religion. If anyone even raises their voice at a Moslem or Christian, their whole community speaks up, but if a Hindu’s sentiment is hurt, then there should be no outcry, because Hindus should just put up with everything. I don’t see any sense or justice in that.
Welcome Sue.
To some extent the reason for that is the fact that Hinduism is not a religion in the traditional sense. It is a collection of many different “religions” and no single person or group has the authority to speak on behalf of Hinduism. As you probably know the roots of these traditions can be traced back thousands of years. It has survived and will survive. It needs no defending.
I full agree with you. Even Cho Ramaswamy has written bitterly against Hussain.
Now a days our spritual gurus have started dabling in to all kinds of politics to gain popularity.
Welcome. I think these “gurus” need their own gurus.
“I don’t comment on individuals because individuals are just part of one wholeness.”
“Everybody is what you call a nimitta — an instrument of the divine,”
“So branding someone good or bad or right or wrong and boycotting them is meaningless is useless.”
“and knowingly or unknowingly something bad might happen from an individual. So when someone does something wrong, don’t hold him a culprit all his life.”
“If you always keep telling a person of all the negative things all the time, the person gets frustrated.”
These are Sri Sri’s own words, in defence of unrepentant Modi.
where is your all inclusive compassion while speaking on MF Hussain.
isn’t this double standard?
Welcome. My history teacher in school used to call people like this “platform orators”. They say what the people want to hear. Their message is not consistent with what they said the day before in front of another crowd.
Sue is right.There should be one yardstick for all religions.Hussain’s nude paintings and similar writings/paintings/drawings found offensive by followers of other religions should be dealt with according to one yardstick.Religion is all about faith.One man’s faith is as good as that of other man.
Welcome Vipin. The question is how do we come to an agreement on what is offensive? I do not find Hussain’s paintings offensive. Others might. I find certain statements by Ravi Shankar offensive. Others might not.
Mr. Hari. Are you really a hari or an ayatolla? If a Hindu leader teaches you to develop your inside and to respect the almighty, then you think that is bad. If a stupid painter ridcules the belief system of millions of people when the painter is under the influence of drugs and does paints stupid pictures you say that is art. Okay, Mr ayatollah. Muslim leaders can issue fatwah if you say bad things about islam. Christian leaders can threaten that your chilkdren will not be admitted into church if you disobey. But Hindu leaders can only preach. But Hari, you do not have the brains to understand that. Do you?
Welcome Rogers. You are obviously seeing me through your communal eyes. This is not a Hindu-Muslim issue. This is about the inconsistency of the message of Ravi Shankar. Just like the “Hindu” leader that you support, you are also a hateful person.
I do not agree with you. The bigger issue was the sentiments of millions of people, rather than the freedom of expression. Certainly MF hussain would have given some explanation, as it was the only option he was left with.
The language of your article is harsh, biased and immature. Some Hindus hate their own religion and some do not. No one is superior but all of us should respect each others’ sentiments before doing( writing or painting) something.
Peace.
Welcome Avesta,
I respect your right to disagree with me. I do not think any less of you as a human being or a Hindu because you disagree with me. I do not want you to leave the country because you disagree with me. Got it?
I wished the so called international spiritual guru Ravi Shanker understood a persons right to disagree and dissent and showed the same respect and compassion to a fellow human being that a mere mortal like me could.
India is a country of over a billion people. For any Indian who is intolerant there are many more like me who choose the path of reason and compassion. I am a Hindu but most importunately I am an Indian and a Human Being first.
The Hinduism I know teaches us to respect elders and not to run 92 year old people who are at the twilight of their lives out of the country away from their loved ones for a painting that was done 35 years ago.
I agree with you his behavior here is ironic to his principles/teachings. Here is something that I feel about him.
I was forced to attend 2 courses designed by him “Basic Course” and DSN “Divya Samaj Ka Nirmaan” and what they taught there is totally opposite to his behavior.
The first thing that came to my mind after hearing his name was “Whats the two Sri for?”
I recently searched him on Wikipedia and found that his name was “Pundit Ravi Shankar” and he changed his name to “Sri Sri Ravi Shankar” after some sitarist objected that he was using the name he had made famous.
Does that go with his principles? This was one of the reasons I didn’t feel like following him.
And above all I hated the session at the DSN where the teacher “Not Ravi Shankar” was asking for donations for about an hour. Everyone present at the course, except 2 – 3 (including me, i didn’t feel like donating for that cause), donated some amount or pledged to donate when he can for building Temples where such courses can be conducted. People donated money in Lakhs. Someone from Leh even donated land along with Rs 50 lakhs.
Believe me the way the teacher(Anand) was giving his speech, while people were donating their hard earned money, anyone who had a “no” in his mind would feel guilty. Moreover I don’t believe that donating money to such Big NGO’s really helps the needy. I prefer going and helping at Old age homes or Orphanages over donating it to such organizations.
Even before day 1 at the “basic course” I goggled him up to see any negative articles about him but found none and this article is the first one.
THUMBS UP!!
Welcome Nick,
Thank you for sharing. In general I do not believe in paying for this type of information. The real “teachers” never charge money. They will be happy to share it with you. These so called gurus do not have any more information or insight about the art of living than you and me. But for whatever reason people all over the world enjoy listening to good speeches and also paying for it.
oh please man…come on. We all talk about secularism but the fact that a normal Hindu on the street will take offence when a ‘Muslim’ paints his Goddess nude is all too obvious. Muslims too would scrutinize what a non-Muslim is saying about his God more closely that what a Muslim is saying.
Obviously in an ideally secular world who the painter is shouldn’t be as much an issue as what the painting is about. But in today’s day when religious tensions are definitely on edge and the masses make the rules, ideal secularism has no place.
That being said, I find it very difficult to believe that MFH was naive enough to be unaware of what the repercussions of his ‘artwork’ was going to be. That they can cause communal tension (which fortunately was nothing serious at all) in an already poisoned society and lead to more hatred and even riots is something even a child could foresee.
Therefore, if MFH went on with the paintings inspite of understanding the ramifications then his intent is all too clear.
Welcome Ananth. Thank you for your feedback.
This is only a Hindu-Muslim issue if we want to make it to be.
This in my opinion is about Hinduism only. How tolerant are we as a religion? How confident are we about our beliefs? Does a religion that can trace its history to human antiquity needs defending from a painter?
If we as Hindus get so upset over a few paintings that we go to the extent of filing numerous cases against a fellow Indian and physically attack him and the galleries that exhibit his paintings and then run him out of the country, then the religion we are supposedly defending is not Hinduism. It is something else.
One of the many objectives of art and literature is to provoke thoughts and feelings. Most of the paintings in question was painted by MFH in 1970. Hindus of that generation had no problems with it. But organizations like VHP and Bajrang Dal have exploited this issue after an article was published in a Hindi magazine in 1996 titled “M.F. Husain: A Painter or Butcher”. We Hindus fell into the trap and let fundamentalist Hindu organizations speak on behalf of us.
Check out Husains painting called “Mother India” and decide for yourself whether you find it offensive (remember Husain denied that the lady in the painting is a Hindu goddess). Most people who are against MFH have never seen this painting (reminds me of Rajiv Gandhi who banned the book Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and later said that he never read the book).
If you want to find something that is really offensive then all you have to do is turn on the television and watch it for a few minutes.
look…the fact that the issue was politicized is undeniable. However, the fact that MF provided the right-wing with the perfect fodder is also equally undeniable.
You are sailing on the unreachable clouds of high idealism. The problem, though, is how are you going to explain your principles to a billion plus people? In a multicultural society, it becomes every man’s responsibility that he takes utmost care not to offend another. Its like treading on glass.
I would never want this to be a Hindu Muslim thing. But I also realize that there are people waiting out there that would love to make it into one at the slightest opportunity. Is it right on our part to play right into their hands in the name of freedom of expression and tolerance? Wouldn’t that make you an equal stakeholder in the spread of hate among the masses?
To me this is not about religion at all. It is the sensitivities of the guy on the street that is the issue.
The sooner people start getting off their high horses and alight into the world of ground realities, the happier, safer and more prosperous this world is going to be.
You forget that this issue was not an issue for the right wing for 35 years. Why now?
I am confused. Are you defending the principles of Hinduism and the constitution of India or are you afraid of the “guy on the streets”? What exactly is your point?
Where did you get the idea that I am “a stakeholder in the spread of hate among the masses”? I am advocating peace and compassion. Difference of opinion is not hate.
You should have backbone my friend and be willing to stand by your principles. Your statements indicate that you have once set of beliefs but you are willing to give in to please the fundamentalists. The world will not be safer when you live a life of fear and accept the rules of the “guy on the street”. It is a false sense of security.
1) The issue became popular knowledge thus stirring public sentiment after 35 yrs. This fact only reinforces what I said about the issue not being about Hinduism but about public sentiment.
2) I revere and respect the feelings of the common man and feel no need to disturb him just coz I have ‘freedom of expression’. How that translates as fear is beyond me.
3) When I said “make YOU an equal stakeholder”, I meant the general YOU. Please reread my comment. I was actually referring to MFH, the Danish cartoonist and their ilk.
4) The whole “you shd have a backbone” is just marketing talk. I say live and let live. You need to have a backbone only if there is some greater good that can be achieved by displaying your backbone. Please feel free to explain to me what greater good MFH’s paintings achieved?
I do not think this has anything to do with public sentiment or the “common man”. It is just about opportunistic right wing Hindu politics. I hope your attitude of “live and let live” also applies to MFH and not just to the “common man”. I do not think MFH or any other artist or film maker has any responsibility to paint or do something that achieves a greater good.
The greater good is in this particular case is to defend Hinduism from being taken over by extremists who have no problem committing violence on Hinduisms behalf and also defend our nations constitution.