Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
Morcha on the Morality Brigade
Frisbeetarianism: The philosophy that when you die, your soul goes up on a roof and gets stuck.
Interes(h)ting! The varied uses of Frisbee! I learnt of this tongue-in-cheek term, variously attributed to George Carlin or Jim Stafford, quite recently. And it helped me with a single word description of what I have been seeking for a long time. What is it, you ask?
Let’s go back to Chitralekha (1964), the film adaptation of Bhagwati Charan Verma’s literary classic of the same name. Verma enquires about the notions of value judgment, what determines right or wrong and contrasts desire with sacrifice. The central tenet is similar to Schopenhauer’s attributing the primacy of will/desire over intellect in what drives man to be unreasonable. Chitralekha is a fascinating story set during the reign of Chandragupta where the life of the central protagonist, Chitralekha, is intertwined with the lives of two men on opposite ends of spiritual spectrum. Samant Beejgupta, a friend of the emperor, represents the material world in all its splendour while Yogi Kumargiri is an ascetic with a strong inner moral compass. Verma brings their lives together and questions the nature of sin and the hypocrisy surrounding the concept of morality. The film version (Director: Kidar Sharma) retained the spirit of the story but couldn’t do adequate justice to the philosophical moorings which formed the crux of Verma’s story.
The area where the film scored was in its music and, more importantly, in the lyrics of Sahir. I am not sure if Sahir had read Verma’s masterpiece but perhaps among all people involved in the film, he got the gist of Verma’s message. And Sahir poured this out in a single Lata solo in the film which to me represents the best of Sahir. The song I am talking about is ‘Sansaar Se Bhagte Phirte Ho’ (I will provide the YouTube link later since the visuals almost kill the song). It is a guileless song, direct, almost blasphemous, in the way it mocks the moral hypocrisy based on religion that has driven the Indian society for ages. Sahir blends it with the story and gets away with a perfect murder.
“sansaar se bhaagte phirate ho,
bhagwan ko tum kyaa paaoge,
is lok ko bhii apana na sake,
us lok mein bhii pachhtaaoge,
sansaar se bhaage phirate ho”
The world is a ‘maya’, an illusion. Stay detached from its pleasures. The real world awaits you on the other side. This is central philosophy that most of us have grown up with. To Sahir, this is denial of reality and he finds it amusing that those living in denial here would be able to find succour in other life.
“Yeh paap hai kyaa ye punya hai kyaa,
Reeton par dharm ki moharen hain,
Reeton par dharm ki moharen hain,
Har yug mein badalate dharmon ko,
Kaise aadarsh banaoge,
Sansaar se bhaage phirate ho.”
How do we ascribe moral value to our actions? What is the nature of sin? Are there absolute rights and wrongs? Have we introspected on why organized religions frown upon some conventions while approving of others? More importantly, is literalism the only way of practising organized religion when religion itself has been changing over ages?
“Yeh bhog bhi ek tapasyaa hai,
Tum tyaag ke maare kyaa jaano,
Tum tyaag ke maare kyaa jaano,
Apamaan rachetaa kaa hogaa,
Rachana ko agar thukaraaoge,
Sansaar se bhaage phirate ho.”
Gratification is wrong. Indulgence is a sin no matter how deservedly you have earned it. Austerity and sacrifice should be your guiding stars. Sahir inverts these notions with some biting sarcasm. Yeh bhog bhi ek tapasya hai!! Indian society cedes moral authority to anyone who has renounced material bliss while Sahir terms them ‘tyaag ke maare’. And then the winning argument – shouldn’t rejecting God’s greatest creation be held as an affront to Him?
“Hum kahate hain ye jag apnaa hai
Tum kahate ho jhootha sapana hai,
Tum kahate ho jhootha sapana hai,
Hum janam bitaa kar jaayenge,
Tum janam ganvaa kar jaaoge.”
This world isn’t ‘mithya’. It’s as real as it gets. Live it to the fullest, drink deep from its fountain.
“sansaar se bhaage phirate ho,
bhagwan ko tum kyaa paaoge.”
This is an almost perfect song; the right metre, relevance to the plot, simple and a strong contrarian message.
For years, I have wondered if there was a term for those that Sahir mocked in this song. Till I hit upon frisbeetarianism. Their souls get stuck in the roof. Look around you, frisbeetarians abound.
p.s.: You can find the song here (it’s one of those things that’s better heard than seen).
12 Responses to “Morcha on the Morality Brigade”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
so Sahir was a closet Charavaki?
Actually the world negating understanding of “maya” is not a mainstream philosophical idea in Indian scripture (atleast in Hindu scripture - it does find some sanction in Buddhist scripture). Nonetheless a very fascinating and appropriate condemnation of the kneejerk reverence that austerity has come to produce in the Indian context. Educated Indians/Urban Indians don’t really show too much curiosity too often about the source ideas of their heritage and how invasions and eventual subjugation have distorted them through the ages. One wonders if this lack of curiosity about the nature of our roots and what sequential occurances have brought us to our current understanding and enactment of our “values” is in some subtle way responsible for a lack of interesting film scripts in a land where the philosophical understanding of the world is so rampant, so multifocal and so downright interesting.
Isn’t curiosity and introspection about ourselves the most essential element to unearthing stories that speak for us ? Great post, very instigative.
5/5.
something fresh and thought provoking.
want more explanation of..
“Yeh bhog bhi ek tapasyaa hai,
Tum tyaag ke maare kyaa jaano,”.
here ‘bhog’ refers to…???
In thamizh, Kannadasan wrote in a lighter vein in ninaithaale inikkum
‘yengaaeyum eppodhum sangeedham sandhosham
raathirigal vndhuvittaal saathirangal yaedhumillai’
Arthaath:
Wherever, whenever, there is music and joy
When night falls, the scriptures can take a walk
He writes in a different song sung by MSV in his own style - mouthed by Rajinikanth weilding an electric guitar,
‘ Jagame thandiram
Sugame mandhiram
Manidhan yandhiam
Shiva sambo’
Arthaath:
‘ The world - a trick
Pleasure - is the key word
Man is an instrument
shiva sambho
‘
Two great poets questioning the stiff view of libertarianism held by moral Whites.
And those views finding expression in populr mainstream media is something so refreshing.
Great post Subrat!!
Me thinks, your (and of the poets - Sahir and Kannadasan) criticism points towards the interpretation of religion (Hinduism), more than the religion itself… right?
Had typed a somewhat longish comment till i realised I was making an assumption (exactly opposite to the one i have mentioned)… so asked :)
and a lovely way of putting it in words (by both the poets)
chitralekha is a masterpiece indeed…if any one has read this book… at least he will get some point to argue.. some points to think beyond common senses…whole book is a philosophy… a hardcore book on philosophy… same as others books and stories of bhagwati saran varma( like sabko nachavat raam ghusai)… and saahir song was just gist of book…sayad kudh bhagwati saran varma bhi ktna accha kavita “chitralekha” nahi like paate…
Dabba: who/what is a closet Charavaki?
@Avi: you’re quite right. We have had a fairly short period of religious introspection in our history
@Faltutimepass: Bhog refers to indulgence as in the term ‘bhog vilas’. Sahir terms bhog as also a kind of tapasya
@VPJ - interesting parallel
@rebehemoth: it’s the interpretation. But I would still like to see what you had written.
@Shatru: At the end of Chitralekha the novel, Verma writes that man is not a master of his destiny, he is a slave to his nature, his circumstances. He is merely an instrument. So how do we judge what’s sin and what’s virtue. I think Sahir got that part pat.
Also, isn’t that novel ‘Sabhinh Nachawat Ram Gosai’? ‘Sabko’ robs it of its original flavor
@ subrat and others - the Charvaka philosophy as an alternative to the repression by popular vedic philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C?rv?ka
And read this for a criticism of Charvaka, but it comes across the other way.
Source - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3440/charvaka.html
CHARVAKA
THE LATEST OF THE THREE EASTERN ATHEISTS’ DOGMAS
“Is it possible that any moral man can tolerate the supremely disgusting and insufferable stuff to be found, for instance, in the Linga Purana? The feats of the Linga, though heroic(!) indeed, are a record of shame and a tale of utter indecency and obscenity. Do such books teach religion? If the reply be in the affirmative, then I say that they teach religions which can only debase the people.” Swami Virjanand
Vrihaspati, a defiant atheist founded the Charvaka religion about 600 B.C. He did not believe in the existence of God, in (the revealed character of) the Vedas and in the efficiency of good works, such as rituals. He professed that no living creature is immortal not even mankind. All are subject to death and therefore must live in pleasure and comfort until then. Let a man, then, enjoy himself to his utmost capacity, deport himself in his world as expediency may direct, accumulate wealth and spend it on the gratification of his desires.
All their interests are centered in this world. There is no hereafter. “The four elements, earth, water, fire and air, have entered into the composition of the human body; consciousness results form their combination even as inebriation results from the use of intoxicants. Similarly, the soul takes its birth simultaneously with the body and is dissolved with its dissolution. The reaping of the fruits of good or evil deeds is, therefore, an utter impossibility.
The soul is called into existence as the result of the combination of the four elements and is annihilated synchronously with the dissolution of the body. Therefore, the existence of the soul, after death, is not demonstrable by direct cognition.
They believe in direct cognition only, because the inferential and cognate modes of reasoning have for their basis direct cognition. Therefore direct cognition being of primary importance, all the rest sink into secondary importance, and are, therefore, not acceptable. The enjoyment that results from embracing a beautiful woman is the greatest reward of human effort.
The Charvakas (see Chapter 12) reviled the Vedas saying that they were composed by buffoons, scoundrels and devils. They read their unauthoritative books and others that condoned their sensual and pleasurable life. . Renunciation of carnal pleasure is considered foolish, because it is mixed with pain. A wise man should reject pain and enjoy pleasure.
Those who renounce all worldly pleasures, for a paradise of uncertain joys, with the practice of rituals and do righteous deeds are subjected to misery. The offer of worship, devoting themselves to the acquisition of spiritual knowledge and all practices sanctioned by the Vedas which have been composed by rogues, are sunk deeper in ignorance. Is it any wonder there is so much misery in India? Since its founding, its following has declined tremendously.
The hope for heavenly bliss when it is clear there is no hereafter is considered rather foolish. In their opinion physical pain such as caused by puncturing the body with a thorn constitutes hell. Salvation is nothing but attaining to the position of a king, who is, as a matter of fact, God, possessed of glory or the dissolution of the body.
The Charvakas maintained that there is no author of the universe and all things combined together by virtue of properties inherent in them.
This can be easily disputed. Dead and inert substances cannot combine together of their own accord and according to some design unless the Conscious Being, God, fashions and shapes them. If they could combine together by virtue of inherent properties, why does not another set of suns or moons keep springing up into existence by themselves.
There is neither heaven nor hell, nor is there any entity like the soul to reap, hereafter, the fruits of deeds done in this life. Nor does the performance of duties pertaining to one’s class and order bear any fruit. The enjoyment of happiness constitutes heaven while the suffering of misery constitutes hell, but if there is no soul, who would enjoy happiness or suffer misery? Just as in this life the soul enjoys and suffers, likewise it will enjoy and suffer in the next birth. Again, it is difficult to believe that the cultivation of virtues as veracity in speech and benevolence by people belonging to other religion will go unrewarded.
They believe that a man should pass his life in ease and comfort even if he has to borrow money from others. Since there is no hereafter no obligation to make repayment exist.
It is wrong to say that, after death, the soul leaves the body and is transported to the next world, for if it be otherwise, why does not the departed soul return home, impelled by love for its family.If oblations offered to the manes of departed ancestors satisfy the living, what need is there, then, for people going abroad to take with them victuals, clothes, cash, etc., to maintain themselves during the journey.
Further more, if animals offered as sacrifice goes to heaven, why does not the master of ceremonies sacrifice his parents or any other relatives or friends to send them to heaven. If the physical wants of ancestors in heaven can be satisfied by offerings made in his name in this mortal world, why cannot the cravings of hunger, felt by a person in the upper story of a house, be satisfied, by some one in the lower story.
The soul is an entity which passes on to another body after death. The joy of borrowing and not paying back is a sin and thus misery will follow you in the next birth. The soul is embodied again and again. This cycle is eternal, but forgets all about its previous births and thus cannot return to a previous family. Then again if you can remember your past as a human being then there will be fear to remember your past as an animal also.
Hence, all these practices have been invented by the priests for their own pecuniary benefit. The ceremony of offering rice balls on the 10th day after death, and other funeral ceremonies like this have been devised for the same selfish purpose.
There are many such pecuniary gains by priests who invented all sort of irrational practices, but all are opposed to the teachings of the Vedas. The lack of the true knowledge is the product of illiterate imbeciles like the Charvakas. How can they ever tell what is intelligent or rational when they were not willing to practice the proper method of studies of the Vedas? It was a serious problem then and sadly it is still an existing problem the world over.
The Charvakas believe that the soul comes into being simultaneously with the body and cease to exist as soon as the body dies. They do not believe that after death the soul begins a new cycle of existence in a human or animal body (metempsychosis), nor in a future life and they reject all kinds of evidence except that of direct cognition.
These three atheist religions (Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka) professed their founders to be the teachers and Lords of the world, while they refuse to believe in the Eternal, Supreme Spirit who is the Lord of Lords. The question is who was the teacher of those founders? If the answer is that they evolved knowledge out their own minds, it cannot be right, because no effect can come into existence without a cause. Man had to be taught as explained earlier in previous chapters.
The followers of these faiths became learned by learning from others and if one can learn without being taught, it is not so among their religions. If, negation of all that exists be the belief of the Buddhists, it can never be valid since that which exists can never cease to exist, though it can be converted into its subtle causal form, the elementary matter from which the whole universe has proceeded.
I have briefly described some of the doctrinal views of these three atheistic faiths. Anyone enlightened and learned will know how much ignorance prevailed among the writers, the real buffoons, scoundrels and devils, of these doctrines that millions follow without any logics attached to it. Just as a straw shows which way the wind blows, so the few specimens of these doctrines given will show the main current of the their views.
Thanks for this thought-provoking post Subrat.
One wonders where these insurgent lyrics/songs/themes/characters are in these incredulous, rebellious times. The “now” generation have grown up more cynical towards blindly following religion, or any institution for that matter, than their predecessors.
With the exception of one Rang De Basanti (which quite frankly I found to be part anti-corruption, part vengeful, and only small part revolutionary), you don’t see nearly as many films that outright question the social/religious morality rules which govern our day to day existence as may be warranted.
I’ve already downloaded the song, will listen to/study/absorb it more in the days to come. :)
aah well… Subrat calls me on stage and I develop stage fright :).
Arre, tab hi mita diya tha (dint store it anywhere) and main doobara nahi type kar raha :P.
Nothing new… just the usual that Hindu philosophy (to my knowledge) doesnt necessarily place a sadhu on a higher pedestal (when talking about approaching ‘God’) and all…
Long story short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Yoga
and that it (achieving God through meditation) is merely one of the several methods and all…