Team Anna: Let it not be Blind-leading-the-blind

Dear Aravind Khejeriwal, 

Though there is reason in your arguments on the issue of taking on individuals, if it is done incorrectly the odds are stacked against you. The wise have something important to convey. It may sound harsh but one would not mind it if he takes into consideration the impact it could have on your team effort at national development. 

For starters there is this idea that comes in from the west—supposedly an accepted bench mark for wisdom—which says “Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events and great minds discuss principles”… And there is some truth in it…  

When taking on individuals and judging them Jesus Christ cautions people against seeing the SPECK in the other’s eye while failing to see the LOG in their own… This of course does NOT have to do with the accuser (team Anna) also doing the same mistake (supposed corruption as the ministers)… rather it is about the accuser creating a mistake at a higher level; the log-in-the-eye is considered as the propensity to ‘judge’ and ‘accuse’ people with a holier-than-thou attitude. And Jesus terms this to be a bigger mistake… 

The Brahma Kumaris point out that the issue of branding anyone (as anything, including criminal) goes against our basic nature of humans and it prevents us from touching our inner highest natures. And Sirshree Tejparkhiji of Tej Gyan foundation suggests that the true leader is one that is in tune with his inner nature; he says, ‘Only he must lead the world who is lead by his heart—by his Highest Nature…’ 

Jesus Christ also adds that if we instead resort to judgment when we deal with other people, then, our attempts to lead others with that perspective, is equivalent to the “blind leading the blind—both fall into the ditch…” A team effort of this kind would therefore surely grind to a halt sooner rather than later…  

What the ministers have DONE can be judged but the ministers themselves must not be judged… there is a subtle difference… true leadership lies in acknowledging the divine even in the ministers and only then, after we have rejected the tendency to judge, objectively find out what mistake they have committed and let them meet their destiny as the law dictates. 

Truly speaking, those who have displayed dishonesty in their dealings are not the ideal people for leadership positions; it damages the prospects of the future, in this case it is the destiny of the nation… the ministers therefore, if they have erred, need to be taken to task. Even so, it is important to separate the people from their actions when we deal with them… ACTIONS can be good or bad according to law… but PEOPLE are not good or bad… as Jesus Christ points out… “Only God is good…”

One hopes and prays that the error of ‘Blind leading the blind’ does not manifest in the efforts of Team Anna; the nation looks up to you and this would do great harm to the wonderful and much needed initiative… 

www.sinduland.com

ISLAM AND THE WILL OF GOD

There seems to be three or four central ideas owing to which Islam seems to be at loggerheads with other religions and if Islam can resolve these along the lines of what the Holy Prophet and God truly desired, culprits can be pinned down and the world can be a better place.

 

A basic presumption that has not been condemned outright is that ‘God of the Muslims is not the same as the God of the Jews and is not the same as the God of the Christians and is not the same as the God of the Hindus….’ 

Connecting the others first, there is absolutely no doubt that ‘The Father’ of Jesus Christ is the same as the ‘Yahweh’ of Moses and the prophets… incidentally Jesus Christ was a Jew till he was crucified. The equivalence is clearly established in the Bible. Next, Jesus Christ’s answer ‘I am who I am’ and his saying that ‘I will be in you and you in me just as The Father is in me and I in The Father’, proves the equivalence of his perspective to the Adwita perspective of the Hindus. 

So if the Quran upholds the equivalence of the ‘God of the Muslims’ to any of the other three then it can be established, that the Holy Quran  indeed mentions the very same Principle that has been brought forward by the sages of these various nations.  

Check the verses from the Quran I.2:47-61 and no sane person will say that there is any difference between the true God of the Muslims and the true God of the Jews.  So that must kill the issue… and having said that the verse I.2:62 clearly says:- 

“Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, who ever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their lord, on them shall be no fear, nor will they grieve”

So the followers of other faiths, provided they are faithful to This One God, will have the promised rewards. Now the question arises as to why, despite this being so clearly said, some followers of Islam do not accept the fact that the faithful of other religions are also faithful. And the answer is that it is on account of an interpretation of a set of verses which could mean either of two things and people think it is their privilege to ‘interpret’ it as ‘they’ choose.

Check out these verses for instance, translated into English by Dr Muhammad TAqi-ud-din Al-Hilali and Dr Muhammad Muhsin Khan:

I:2:81. Yes! Whosoever earns evil and his sin has surrounded him, they are dwellers of the Fire (i.e. Hell); they will dwell therein forever.

1:2:82 And those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah ___ - Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, they are dwellers of paradise, the will dwell therein forever

The corresponding verses are numbered differently in the translation by Maulawi Sher Ali:

I.2.82 Aye, whoso does evil and is encompassed by his sins—those are the inmates of the Fire; therein shall they abide

I.2:83 But they who believe and do good works—those are the dwellers of Heaven; therein shall they abide

Clearly there is a mismatch. In the second verse of the first translation it was kind of the translators to put their interpolations and interpretations in brackets. But what is there in the bracket clearly is an ‘addition’. In fact it also gives insight into the colored perspective with which the entire translation has been done. The original text does not apparently give any advantage to somebody who calls himself ‘Muslim’ or ‘practices’ the rituals of Islam. But in the interpretation the scholar conveniently adds things about Islamic Monotheism… thus excluding those practicing Christian Monotheism for instance—which is not the idea mentioned in the Original Book. 

When it is said that the original must not be changed in as much as an addition or deletion of a dot, can translators take such liberties? 

That is not all; there is mention of people who do not do the will of God and at such places if the translator adds ‘Jews’ in a bracket while translating, it reveals further that it is a ‘colored’ translation. Therefore, instead of judging people on the basis of the actions of good and evil, such translators are instead judging on the basis of the labels of ‘Jew’ and ‘Muslim’. This is mischief. It defies the dictum that even a single dot must not be changed both in letter and spirit. 

This takes us to the second question. Who is the Kafir? 

Clearly, if there is Oneness in the Supreme Being, meaning that the various perceptions of the Supreme Being are but different views of the Same Thing, then the correct test for whether a person is faithful or not is not the label (Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Sikh), it is the good deeds – bad deeds part which distinguishes the faithful and the unfaithful within each group.   

So it is about giving up one’s ego and bowing down in surrender to a Higher Power. If that ego remains (I am a ‘Good’ Muslim/Christian/Hindu said with pride also has elements of ego in it) then one is unfaithful, irrespective of what label he carries. 

And here comes the next part; Jihad: 

There is this person who is unfaithful—does not believe—and is therefore a kaafir. So then, must he be eliminated…? Absolutely not, the Quran clearly says that even with the unfaithful, if an agreement or pact has been made, then it must be honored by the faithful. 

The only place one can take to arms against the unfaithful is when the faithful are under mortal attack by them. And this has been associated with the term ‘Jihad’. 

‘Jihad’ is nothing other than doing what God wills of you, come what may. That is what Jesus Christ did when he laid down his life; it was The Father’s will which he held above his own. The equivalent term in Hinduism is Dharma. One must fulfill his Dharma—that is what the Highest Self desires—without pandering to his ‘individual’ ego. And if every act is guided by what God the Father expects, then a person is performing Jihad. 

Instead of seeing this equivalence which God has revealed to the various nations of the world, if a person gets stuck in his ‘personal interpretation’ that it is about ‘labels’ and not about ‘deeds’ and ‘kindness’, he is truly unfaithful—a Kafir if you may—does not matter even if he is flawless in his rituals and/or is labeled by himself or his fellowmen as a ‘Muslim’…  

The only thing that needs to be done is this: “Not a dot must be changed”, accept that in both letter and spirit. Produce a faithful translation of the Holy Book without coloring it with ‘perspective’; it will answer all questions and help better identify the wolf in sheep’s clothing—from all religions.

INDO-PAK: A CASE FOR BEING BIG HEARTED

 “This is a fitting reply to the 26/11 Mumbai carnage”, said Gambhir in the post match presentation ceremony after the Indo-Pak semifinal match at the Cricket World Cup; it sounded very poetic and patriotic and he was applauded too. And naturally it did not go down well with the opponents. A visibly disturbed Afridi eventually commented that his counterparts in the opposite team did not have ‘large hearts’… 

This could easily be seen as him accusing his opponents of bad sportsman spirit, but there is another perspective that makes more sense. Clearly, for a person like Afridi, and for most average Pakistanis, the event at Mumbai was not a sane act. Even if Afridi/Pakistanis harbor a desire to spread the grace of Islam, this, they know, surely is not the way. There is nothing Islamic about a set of goons walking about in a city shooting hapless people who are in turn going about doing their daily work. It is just a set of groupies drunk on some freaked out un-Islamic idea, going after another perceived set of groupies—all with very confused human motives—never mind what they ‘say’ they stand for. Afridi surely had nothing to do with it, other than through the fact that he was a Pakistani. How could Afridi, when he played the world cup match, be accused for holding fort for Kasab, his dead companions and his mentors?

This is the unanswered question that hangs fire between the people of the two nations—that it is not easy for Indians to say readily that Afridi is not to be blamed, and that it is not easy for the Pakistanis to condemn the Mumbai incident without an iota of doubt. And the leaders don’t seem to be able to rise high enough to pull the nations out of it. Most experts feel that the nations are going to stay in this quagmire for a long time to come…   

  

In the Indian subcontinent Islam and Hinduism eventually discovered that they could co-exist. Sufism had proved, without any doubt that the ultimate aim of Islam was in total sync with the local ethos of the Hindu culture. But there are numerous temporal motives in every age, seeking to divide people on various bases; and it was the same in pre-independence India as well.  With a little help from the colonial masters a wedge wriggled itself into place between the Hindus and Muslims—at least in the political eye—and it paid huge unwanted dividends. 

Differences between people are natural but divisions amongst peoples are man-accentuated; it has got nothing to do with God. It is known in all true spirituality that the only difference that matters is the divide that separates Yudhistir and Duriodhan; though they happened to be from one breed—cousins in fact—one fought for God’s design and the other fought for his own human agenda.  

Was India and Pakistan divided in such a way that on one side there was righteousness and on the other evil? Of course not, somebody drew a line on the map separating one piece of land from the other and evil was let loose. A lot of blood was ultimately spilled before, when and after people crossed that line into anticipated safety. 

Was the conceiving of an Islamic state, carved out of India, an act inspired by Divine Will…? Definitely not, it was a pragmatic mongering for misconceived fiefdoms. How is it possible that one can create a divide by placing ‘mistrust-between-children-of-God’ as the centerpiece and then build a new nation up by keeping ‘trust-between-the-children-of-God’ as the centerpiece? And more importantly, how could people who do not understand this, ever build an Islamic nation—endowed with Islam’s highest principles…?  It does not work that way… Islam would never have authorized the divide of the Indian nation for the simple reason that the fundamental ethos—Vasudaivakutambakam—of Hinduism does not allow for committing atrocities on the faithful of any religion. Atrocities were committed, but it was the collective failure of the people of that time (even as Hindutwa fails humanity today) and it cannot be held against the ethos of the nation.  

It is time to grow up. Somewhere down the line the Pakistanis must turn around and tell their leaders that this has not gone along the way God wanted and that they need to correct their course. Pakistan must die to the basic principle of ‘distrust’ present in the roots of its formation before it re-builds on the basis of a stronger foundation of trust which Islam espouses.    

Horrible Method: Even more unwise are the methods which the Pakistani leaders have come to use. The professed aim was to bleed India with a thousand cuts, and what came of that? One former Pakistani Prime Minister ended up bleeding; who incidentally, in her own wisdom, had advocated a 1000 year war. 

According the status of ‘legitimate’, to the use of ‘murder’ on civilian populations of other groups out of the notion that they are ‘enemies’, is one of the big faults a nation can commit. In Islam you cannot “legitimize” murder of innocents even on nations that have declared war on you. It only ‘appears’ legitimate when it is targeted against other nations supposedly practicing ‘false’ faiths; but this has no divine sanction.  

Besides it does not take long for the feeling of ‘they’ (my enemies) to shift from ‘other religions’ or ‘other nations’ and get carried forward to ‘other sects’, ‘political enemies’, ‘False Muslims’ and the like—who they begin identifying in their own neighborhoods. Because that is the new rule now: ‘enemies can be dealt with murder as long as you can declare, on any whimsical basis, that the other person is an infidel’.  

Pakistan now bleeds because it officially or unofficially continues to sympathize with the use of ‘un-god like’ violence against ‘the other’. But that seems to be the approach in a significant number of the present practitioners of Islam all over the world; and in that sense the community practicing the religion of Islam has not been able to separate the chaff from the grain from amongst its professed followers. 

Pakistan must learn to reject this. Rather than being influenced thus, it must instead offer leadership to the Islamic world by strengthening and exporting its Sufiana base. 

One does sympathize deeply with Afridi; it is indeed small hearted of Indians to paint all Pakistanis with the same brush. But then Afridi, and all other well meaning Pakistanis, need to be large hearted too, to stand up for a Pakistani leadership that can move on.  

Unfortunately it is the Kashmiri who is paying the price. By a special status being accorded for Kashmir in the Indian Constitution, it is, technically speaking, freer than the rest of India. What more then, does Kashmir want that is not available to Tamil Nadu or to Orissa for instance? And mind you, India is one of the freest places in the world, (too free for comfort, since the poor are not well protected). So why this red herring—of denial of freedom by the Indian state…? Is it not too obvious, as to what the real issue is, from the fact that the trouble in Kashmir suddenly became pronounced round about the same time that the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan; 1989 thereabouts? 

And then the Kashmiris too cannot be blamed. Their sane leaders have been targeted for elimination by the militants. And it is fashionable to talk anti-India now as it is a triple whammy; first is that militants do not murder those who speak anti-India, second ‘patronage’ is obtained from dubious sources, and third the Indian state is not mandated to eliminate anybody but rather must protect the freedom of speech. The sad outcome is that it is easy to be a leader who is unfaithful to the cause of Peace in Kashmir. 

The leaders and citizens who stand up for peace any way, and do their part against the interference of the negative elements, hats off to their courage and large heartedness…  God bless them for their resolve; India, especially Kashmir, owes them a great debt…

PATRIARCHY AND DOWRY IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

When women outnumbered men more than three to one, the most gracious solution in society was that a man could take as many as four wives. Now that men outnumber women in India, it will be unhealthy in society if polyandry is not allowed. But what is it that has brought us to this pass…?

Some thought leads us to the conclusion that the practice of Dowry, as seen in the context of patriarchy in contemporary India, is the cause of this adverse female to male ratio. But the question of Dowry cannot be seen in isolation; there are several global issues involved.

At the outset, when considering issues of Dowry, patriarchy, women’s lib and Human Rights, two important points have to be reckoned…

First, Ideals are indispensable: No human togetherness worth its name exists in the absence of the pursuit of an ideal. People must be encouraged to either offer a better ideal or keep their criticisms to themselves (and stop wasting public space and time). 

 

Second, fairness and justice is the bedrock of team strength: Any successful human team endeavor gains strength when individuals who participate in that endeavor become willing spokes; and no one becomes a willing spoke if he is subjected to atrocities. It is impossible to achieve civilization status, and that too sustained for thousands of years, at any place where the members of a group commit atrocities against one another… Hitler, Polpot, etc are high profile examples of such failures… lower profile examples can be had in our immediate neighborhoods in the form of bosses and heads of families who don’t quite make the cut…  

  

   ****

The medieval period in European History, that lies somewhere between the age of the Greeks and the Modern era, is more or less considered as an era of wilderness. Comparatively, the modern era is heralded as a time when Europe made great progress; the women too are supposed to have taken great strides forward in this period. It took a long time coming though, for instance the women in the USA got a right to vote as late as in the 20^th century.

Under this typical world-view, no one opposes the rant of certain individuals who talk down the ‘Victorian’ age and express how much they have progressed ever since… Such persons also have the tendency to measure the whole world with the same yardstick and in the process accuse the traditional systems in India as being Victorian-like. In their well meaning efforts they would want to take India forward to equality and greatness. This is absurd

.

 India has been a civilization for more than 3000 years—may be 5000 years—unbroken. No civilization ever survives unbroken that long if it were to be based on committing atrocities on more than 50% of its population—in fact much more… the idea is impractical… all who propose that it has been atrocities all along are either misguided or do not sufficiently understand human nature.

Columbus’s attempt to find India can be marked as the beginning of the attempt of the western world to understand India—and the west are yet to discover it fully… instead, in the meanwhile, thanks to the education initiatives of William Bentinck and the East India Company, the western world has extended into the minds of the intellectuals of India. So these ‘educated’ Indians too still need to discover the brilliance of the ancient Civilization alongside their thought-compatriots in the west….

In truth, when Europe sans Greece had not even progressed out of tribal existence the principles of equality were already deeply etched in the life and traditions of ancient India; that too in a form that is even more advanced than is practiced in modern day Europe.

At the core of the Indian civilization is the Vedantic thought process and the associated Varna system. (Never mind the ranting that will immediately commence condemning the ‘caste’ nature of its arrangement… this shouting can be parked in one corner of our minds, for it does not help in the progress of knowledge and understanding.) So at the pinnacle of this system were supposed to be the Brahmins and it is instructive to understand an essential component of their marriage rites. This is instructive because though it one understands the essential principles of living together that were idealized in this land… The brahminical way of life was a beacon which other groups drew inspiration from… 

At one stage in the marriage rite of the Brahmins the girl shifts her position from the right side of the groom over to the left. What does this act in the ritual signify?

When the ceremony commences, her standing to the right signifies that she is equal to the man. During the process of the wedding she accepts subservience to him and there upon shifts to the lift… Now this may sound repulsive to women’s lib, but we need to enquire further to understand this better… She says to him in the rituals, “in order that I shift from your right to your left I lay down seven conditions which you must accept…” and the man on the other hand says that he has only one condition that she must accept in order that she may the place to his left… these conditions form the basis of the composition of marriage in an ideal Hindu society.

What are these seven and one conditions…? The most obvious of the seven would probably be that the man will not set his eye with desire on any other woman—indeed it is… but that is not just it, consider these two conditions… “You will not dispose any property that you own without my PERMISSION”, and “You will not make donations without my PERMISSION”. See? It is not just ‘tell me what was donated’, or even ‘tell me what you are going to donate…’ it is ‘take my permission’… now is it not heavily loaded on the side of the woman… but the condition on the side of the man settles it… “You will respect my parents and you will ‘obey’ me”… 

For a moment, if detached contemplation is done on this exchange, it becomes evident that a certain dynamics is set into motion by this commitment they make to each other in front of their near and dear ones; and it is encapsulated in the ritual of the lady stepping from the right of the man to his left… the question to be asked here is whether this ideal must be condemned in the name of it being a component of the ‘unequal Patriarchal system’?  Do also remember that this was designed more than 3000 years ago…

Patriarchy needs to be seen from another perspective. It is usual to say that it was brute force that made society settle on the equation that woman must be subservient to man (it is the kind of thinking which claims that all of the ancient world was ‘primitive’) but instead, if we start with the premise that the persons who designed this ideal in ancient India were indeed ‘equal’ minded as the generous moderns aspire to be, and were gracious and truly concerned of all in society just as the well meaning persons of modern society are, then we give ourselves a chance to understand what they must have reckoned while setting up the ideal. 

Indeed the biological realities of homo sapiens and the technology of those times dictated solutions in which the men were generally considered bread earners while home nurturing became the career of the female of the species. Then there is the question of menopause… in the case of men it is later; if a couple must lose interest in sexual intercourse roughly around the same time, it was but natural to encourage older men and younger women to pair up. Coupled with this is the fact that when equals form teams there is a tendency for democratic stalemate as everyone would assert their rights to decide for the team. In order to avoid this captaincy was to be awarded to one of the pair and the older one was the natural choice. And arrangements for other social needs were constructed in the traditions surrounding these basic considerations. 

Now, solutions generated were not uniformly like this… there have been successful traditions in which the lineage has been based on matriarchy… That does not matter, whatever the choice, successful groups always were based on essential equality of all humans… 

Seeing that this sense of equality is the essence of Indian Civilization the question arises as to what the logic behind the system of Dowry is…

A materialistic perspective which gives a degraded position for women would consist of ‘paying’ the girl’s father for ‘purchasing’ the woman… Positively seen, this tradition of giving bride money can mean to afford compensation to parents for the loss of the love and company of their daughter… but in the Indian system the thinking is something else. Where inheritance has traditionally been through males, a parent who treats his children as equals would therefore pass on a daughter’s share of his property to her when she went to her in-laws. The property would add up to the property of the in-law home as is usually held in a patriarchy. Her going to the in-laws (and not staying with her parents) too was one of the dimensions of a well designed patriarchy, which in turn was built to satisfy the prime goal of equal concern to all members of society.

But the situation stands altered today. The Indian state has changed the policy of inheritance on the basis of some new ideas of doing justice through equality. Thanks to the parliaments of free India, there is an attempt to redo the social structure in India on the basis of “equality” concepts coming in from ‘modern’ thinkers… With new rules in place, based on the constitution of India, there is a direct attempt at re-structuring the patriarchal system that existed in most of traditional India.

Under these new conditions, the property share need not be given out to the daughter during marriage; the question of dowry or Sthreedhana does not therefore arise… expenses of marriage ceremonies is preferably borne equally by both sides, even the daughter need not be encouraged to go to the groom’s place after marriage… it also not fashionable for the girl to obey her husband since they are ‘equals’…

Therefore, when we make measurements on the basis of the fundamentals of equality that underlies successful civilizations, with special reference to the question of dowry, there is no ‘well-being’ reason for continuing the ideal tradition of dowry in today’s context. In this new arrangement traditional thought itself points out that Sthreedhana need not be passed on at the time of wedding; the question of dowry therefore does not arise… though of course daughters may be expected to look forward to a share of their parents’ property later in life, which they will hold in their own name… 

The dowry problem is the result of the nation being caught up in a confused blind between these two alternate arrangements—traditional and the so called modern. If one is clear on which side he is he will easily be able to take a decision but either way it is important to realize that it is about fairness to one and all… and it is no more than a matter of dividing one’s disposable property equally amongst the children and seeking to perpetuate a fruitful family environment within or outside a patriarchal system…

As for practical life today, if we go beyond the ideals, it must be pointed out that ‘dowry seekers’ are not among the ‘worthy’ people a girl’s parents must entertain. A home that harbors greed (more so if it got rid of its daughters in the womb or soon after birth) is hell for a daughter. Parents are fools who purchase a life of misery for their daughter… They must take recourse to wisdom, especially if they love their daughter and truly want to invest for her future of peace and contentment and therefore joy…

www.sinduland.com  

THE GITA PERSPECTIVE ON SEXUAL GRATIFICATION

There are alternate perspectives on the truth regarding the pursuit of happiness. The Bhagwad Gita offers one in a rather crystallized form: it does not make sense to go about life without knowing the facts or having a fulfilling attitude...

66. For the uncontrolled person there is no knowledge, nor is there meditation for him; and for the un-meditative person there is no peace, and for one bereft of peace how can there be happiness?
67. Whichever of the wandering senses the mind follows, that one carries away his wisdom as the wind a ship on the sea.

--- Bhagwad Gita, Chapter 2 verses 66, 67 (Swamy Vireshvarananda’s translation)

A little reflection on the two verses above would reveal that whenever the mind is in pursuit of pleasures there is no chance of happiness… Is it not a radical thing to say…?

Do note that the verses do not browbeat; they are postulates; someone inquired and 'discovered' this ‘reality’ and he is presenting it in the two verses. In other words, the claim is that a sincere/honest (and may be lucky) explorer will find evidence that a person seeking pleasure will not be meditative; he will not have peace and therefore will not find happiness…

It is said that everything a man does is in pursuit of Happiness… If he believes that pleasures will give him happiness he will pursue it, if he believes that ‘rest’ will give him happiness he will want to take rest… similarly believing that 'achievements' or 'friendships' or even 'sacrifice' will give him happiness he could be pursuing these … And these things, which he pursues, need not be fixed, they can change from time to time … But be that as it may, all actions are supposedly taken up by man primarily in pursuit of happiness…

Now, when individuals seek happiness in sensual pleasures… according to these two verses, they chase red herrings… It supposedly is not going to get them to where they want to go...

Is this true...? If people follow the senses, would they find happiness and fulfillment in life or would they not …?!

There is evidence to believe that at the end of a pursuit there is momentary happiness… But then it is known to be momentary and is not assured either … Besides this there seems to be nothing positive to gain from such pursuit... Instead, there is this long phase of 'yearning' for what the senses seek; if the mind is not at peace, and if it is agitated over something it pines for, there seems to be little chance for happiness… This needs investigation and one hopes people will not delude themselves over it...

*******

Now, applying this logic to sexual intercourse (in which the senses have a major say) does it mean that in pursuit of (or through ‘seeking’) sexual intercourse, one cannot find happiness? Or, does that mean the fun in a sexual intercourse does not lie in pursuing it with a desire to satisfy the senses?!!

Chapter 3 of the Bhagwad Gita (verses 9 to 16) throws light on this;

9. This world is bound by action other than that done for sacrifice; (therefore) perform actions for the sake of that, O son of Kunti (Arjuna), free from attachment.

10. Prajapati, creating of yore beings who co-exist with a sacrifice, said; “By this you multiply, let this yield you covetable objects of desire."

The two passages indicate that man is created by Prajapati (God) in such a manner (in other words, it is the nature of man) that coexistence with the spouse is driven by a “sacrifice”… That is, humans are not ‘bound’ by their sexual 'needs'; as is otherwise claimed in current intellectual circles… It is not the nature of the human that he has ‘a healthy libido which needs satisfaction’… Instead he has a choice whether or not to take up the “sacrifice”…

Therefore ‘need’ and ‘sacrifice’ are two contrary observations about the nature of the human and there apparently exists a need to resolve between the two… But since we are familiar with the arguments in favor of the ‘need’ view, let us explore what the authors of the “sacrifice” perspective have to say…

Continuing in the vein that “sacrifice” is the way nature has designed man, the author says:

11. “By this entertain the gods and let the gods entertain you; entertaining each other you will both attain supreme good."

The 'sacrifice' perspective therefore asks for ‘entertaining’ a ‘god’… check it out… it is not a violent one sided act of Sc****** or F****** each other… further it is about letting the other entertain you and through that both attaining ‘Supreme Good’… 'Supreme Good' meaning that it is supposed to be consistent with the Highest Self or Godliness …

A one sided approach to it, that is, if sexual intercourse is pursued with the sole focus on one’s own satisfaction, and nothing is paid back to the god in (pleasure) kind at that instant (this has nothing to do with later on paying a sex worker for ‘services’), then it is the same as thieving. So the next passage says…

12. “Being entertained by the sacrifices the gods will surely bestow on you the desired enjoyments. He who enjoys what is given by them without offering it to them, is indeed a thief.

13. “The good who partake of the remainants of a sacrifice are freed from all sins; but those sinful persons who cook for their own sake, partake of sin.”

It figures; there is a natural process and one has not fulfilled his side of the completeness when he pursues self gratification... so he is a thief. Further the passage 13 points out that if one does not follow the “sacrifice” route to sexual intercourse, it defies essential human nature and is sinful…

Verses 14 and 15 that follow are technical in nature and explain how the entire act of intercourse is essentially part of the natural process and that it essentially divine; the exchange is supposed to eternally rest in the Highest Goodness (the Veda)…

14. Beings are born from food, food is produced from rain, rain comes from a sacrifice, and a sacrifice results from action

15. Know that action originates from Brahman (the Veda), and Brahman originates from the Imperishable. Therefore the all-pervading Brahman (Veda) eternally rests in the sacrifice.

Here of course one needs to stretch the imagination to figure out what the various terms mean, but by the sequence it is clear that if the approach is 'sacrificial' then there is no question of sin...

16. He who does not follow here this cycle thus set revolving, who leads a sinful life and delights in the senses, in vain, O Partha (Arjuna), does he live.

So if one does not follow the 'sacrificial' approach, he lives in vain… in other words, a person who delights in the senses continues to live in a wandering mind that is doing nothing but ‘yearning’ for happiness always, and not managing to being quite there… and is perpetually miserable… That forlorn existence makes him live like ‘trees moving around’ (Bible), like a vegetable, devoid of happiness, in the lesser worlds, shorn of charisma and not living in the present moment

(http://www.sinduland.com)