History

Thiruvattar Shri Adi Keshava Perumal Temple : A Temple that Shaped a Kingdom.

EnsuresLeave a comment

On one of my trips to Thiruvananthapuram, my colleague Shri Sudheesh Thampi after the official duties and some temples already covered in Thiruvananthapuram city, suggested we drive down to some unique temples across the Kerala border. He was so sure that I would thank him later, and Boy! what a pilgrimage it turned out to be. It was peak monsoon in Kerala and non-stop rain added to the fervour (and flavour). First stop was, 3rd of the Shivalaya Sivalaya Ottam – Thirparappu Arulmigu Mahadevar Temple (Shri Jatadharan) in Kulashekaram town (compiling the research and will be my next article)

Thirparappu Shri Mahadevar Temple (Shri Jatadharan)
More details in my future Article

This Maxi-post is about the next one that we visited and that which left me awestruck and the spirtual hangover lasted for a few days after my return – Thiruvattaru Shri Adi Keshava Perumal Temple.

PC: WWW

The Shri Adikesava Perumal Temple is a highly venerated Hindu shrine situated in Thiruvattar in the Kalkulam Taluk of the Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu. It holds the distinction of being one of the 108 Divya Desams dedicated to Bhagwan Vishnu.

The temple is uniquely situated, surrounded by three rivers: the Kothai (or Kotha), the Pahrali (or Parali), and the Thamirabarani. The name Thiruvattar is derived from the curved flow (vattaru) of the Paraliyar river around the temple, and the region was historically known as ‘Valaneer Vattaru’ by the poet Malkudi Kilar in the ancient anthology Purananuru. There is another school of thought on the origin of the name that says three rivers named earlier encircle this temples as recorded in Nammalvar’s 11 pasurams in praise of Adi Kesava Swamy in the 6th Thiruvai mozhi. By sheer luck and blessings we had the fortune of listening to these pasurams from Scholar from Srirangam Thiru Varadan Mama. We have recorded his entire talk in Tamizh, recorded by yours truly (Pardon the quality of recording).

Nammalvar’s 11 pasurams in praise of Adi Kesava Swamy in the 6th Thiruvai mozhi
An Exposition by Srirangam Thiru Varadan Mama

Antiquity, Nomenclature, and Architectural Style

The temple is known by ancient names such as Adi Ananthapuram and Dakshina Vaikundam. It is also historically referred to as the ‘Srirangam of the Chera Kingdom’. While its exact founding date is uncertain, Tamil hymns suggest its antiquity dates back to the 7th or 8th centuries C.E., with some accounts placing the inner sanctum construction over 4,000 years ago.

AS can be seen in the above Photograph, the temple showcases a blend of Dravidian and authentic Kerala-style architecture, closely resembling the Shri Ananta Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram. The Thiruvattar temple is considered older and is said to have served as the model for the Thiruvananthapuram temple. Significantly, the presiding deity of Adikesava is revered as the Elder Brother of Sri Ananta Padmanabha Swamy, and their idols are placed facing each other (Adi Kesava facing west and Padmanabhaswamy facing east).

The Deity and Architectural Features

The presiding deity, Bhagwan Vishnu in the form of Adi Kesava Perumal (also known as Adi Ananthapadmanbhan), is in the Yoga Nidra Postures – the Bhujaga Shayana (reclining posture) on Adi Sesha. The Moorti measures 22 feet in length and is made of Kadu Sarkara Yogam, a mixture of mustard, jaggery, and lime powder is bigger than Shri Anantha Padmanabha Swami. He is seen with his consort Ambal Maragathavalli Nachiar. A unique feature is that Bhagwan’s form must be viewed through three separate Dwarams (Openings). A Shiva linga is also situated near Bhagwan inside the garbha gudi (santucm sanctorum), and the unusually Deity’s feet point north while his head points south (speciality of this temple). This direction is in exact opposite direction of how Shri Ananta Padmanabha Swamy reclines. It is said that the latter lied in this direction to see his elder brother, Adi Keshava. The temple is surrounded by a thirty-feet-high fort wall.

Key architectural marvels include:

  • Ottakkal Mandapam (Single-Stone Hall): A hall built from a single stone slab, approximately 18 feet wide and 3 feet thick/high, installed by King Veera Ravi Varma Kulasekhara in 1603 CE
  • It is built in such a manner that the sun’s rays fall directly on the deity on the 3rd and 9th day of Puratasi and Panguni. During Painguni utsavam, Lord’s utsava-murti comes on a golden Garuda and have a dip in the river thus enacting the incident of purifying hitherto sinful rivers, Kothai and Parali.
  • Nalambalam: The circumambulatory passage features 224 ornately carved granite pillars.
  • Udaya Marthanda Mandapam: This hall in front of the sanctum is decorated with exquisite wooden carvings, notably depicting the marriage procession of Bhagwan Ganesha.
  • Inscriptions: Close to 50 inscriptions in Tamil and Sanskrit (Vattezhuthu and Nagari) are found, including those related to Kulothunga Chola I and Chera royalty. One of the inscription also includes a mentions that temple was established in Treta Yuga.

Purana and Legends

Brahma performed a yajna without Maa Saraswati and as a result of Saraswati’s anger, brother sister sibling asuras Kesan and Kesi emerged out of agni of the Yagna. The devas approached Bhagwan Vishnu and pleaded with Him to free them from this torment. Bhagan Vishnu in the form of Adi Kesava fought with Kesan. Lord threw Kesan who fell on top of Mahendragiri and Bhagwan blew His Shankha (Conch). Adi Sesha, the serpent King wound himself around Kesan thus disabling the asura to move after which Bhagwan Vishnu laid himself on Adi Sesha thus putting His weight on the asura. When the asura tried to free himself from Adi Sesha’s coils, Bhagwan made 12 Siva-lingams to stand as guard all around the asura and Him. These Shivalingams are in Thirumala, Thikkurussi, Thrupparappu, Thirunandhikkara, Ponmana, Pannippakam, Kalkkulam, Melankodu, Thiruvidaikkodu, Thiruvithamkode, Thiruppanrikkode and Thirunattalam. After Kesan was defeated, Kesi and her friend Kothai took the form of rivers to encircle and submerge Bhagwan. Bhoomi Devi (Mother Earth) saved the deity by raising the temple terrain, which is why the shrine is situated at a height of about 55 feet from the ground level. Bhagwan Adi Kesava then purified the two rivers by taking a sacred dip. The sages Parashurama and Vashista are also said to have performed penance at this holy site.

A miraculous event occurred in the late 17th century when a Mughal Sardar’s forces invaded. The local Raja Kerala Varma prayed to Adi Kesava, singing the Paada Sankeerthanam. A swarm of wasps rushed out of the temple, attacking the army, and killing the Sardar, leading to a decisive victory for Kerala Varma.

Historical and Devotional Significance

The temple was once a part of the erstwhile kingdom of Travancore. The Travancore Royal Family held the temple in high esteem:

  • Marthanda Varma (1729-1758 CE): The first ruler of Travancore, alongside his minister Ramayyan Dalawa, gave high importance to the temple. Before the Battle of Colachel (1741), the Maharaja prayed here, dedicating his sword to the deity.
  • Thiru Allah Pooja: In 1740, the Nawab of Arcot’s forces looted the golden Utsava-murti. Upon the subsequent illness of the Nawab’s wife, a dream instructed the priest to return the idol. After its restoration and the wife’s recovery, the Nawab endowed an annual 21-day ritual called the Thiru Allah Pooja, which is performed even today. During the Seeveli (evening ceremonial procession of the deity, the abharanas donated by Nawab is used as alankara for the deity.
  • Alwar saint Nammalwar: Glorified the temple through 11 pasurams in 6th Thiruvai mozhi.
  • Maharishi Vedvyasa: mentions this temple and Adikeshava in Padma Purana written 2500 years ago
  • Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu: the founder of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect, visited in 1510 A.D. and discovered the 5th chapter of the Brahma-samhita within the temple premises, which he subsequently transcribed. In the temple there is a spot, the very place that Shri Chaitanya was seated for transcribing Brahma-samhita.

Rituals and Festivals

The temple’s rituals and practices follow the Kerala-style (Taantrika Vidhi). Many ceremonies are required to be performed here before they are conducted at the Shri Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thirvananthapuram.

Major festivals, which often coincide with those in Thiruvananthapuram, include:

  • Vaikunda Ekadasi (Swarga Vathil Ekadasi).
  • The 12-day festival in the month of Thai (Perunthamirthu, Kalapa Poojai).
  • The 10-day Painguni Utsavam, during which the processional idol is taken on a golden Garuda for a ritualistic bath in the river, re-enacting the forgiveness of the rivers.

Prasadam

Offerings at the temple include Paal Payasam (Milk Kheer), Aval, and Appam.

Dress Code:

Devotees must adhere to a strict dress code: men must wear a dhoti or pyjama with an upper cloth, or formal pants and shirts; women must wear a sari or a half sari or churidhar with an upper cloth.

Directions to Reach

https://maps.app.goo.gl/mrsU1NCMfP2Qh17m9

Contact
+91 9442577047

Some Pictures that we clicked wherever it was allowed:

Ever grateful to Sudheesh Thampi whose idea it was to make this pilgrimage
Blessed and Blissed Author (yours truly)

India’s Basic Structure Doctrine: Infallible, Inviolable, Inescapable?

EnsuresLeave a comment

Sharing an amazingly enlightening piece by a learned legal specialist and my personal mentor, Senior Lawyer and Strategist Shri Anil Kappillil. Please do share with others and leave your feedback.

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The Supreme Court of India has made one of the strongest global statements regarding judicial autonomy which it established as essential under the basic structure doctrine. This research provides thorough examination of India’s independent judiciary through theoretical notions along with practical examples and possible risks comparing it to U.S. court proceedings and Canadian and Australian judicial systems. Judicial independence stands as a shared constitutional value throughout these democracies yet the Indian Supreme Court establishes judicial autonomy as an unalterable basis that contrasts with other comparative frameworks thus raising vital issues about governmental control and powers divisions.

The Basic Structure Doctrine: Origins and Development in India

The basic structure doctrine represents an exclusive Indian invention that established a transformative relationship between courts and other governmental authorities. The Supreme Court established this judicial principle that prohibits Parliament from changing particular fundamental elements of the Indian Constitution no matter which amendment process it employs.

Historical Development and Judicial Reasoning

On April 24 1973 the Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine by means of the Kesavananda Bharati case. Through this doctrine the Parliament gained limited constitutional amending powers because it had to preserve the essential features of the foundation structure of the Constitution prescribed by the Supreme Court. The doctrine developed through intense executive-judicial conflicts which reached its peak during the government of Indira Gandhi then in power while she attempted to curtail judicial oversight power. The Supreme Court established a collection of unchangeable constitutional elements to include the rule of law together with sovereignty and judicial review as well as separation of powers and secularism and the republican characteristics of India.

Judicial Autonomy as an Essential Component

The Indian Supreme Court established judicial autonomy and independence as vital elements for the basic structure of the Constitution. The legal understanding stipulates that changes which reduce judicial independence or impair judicial power from the legislature will fail even when they fulfill constitutional amendment procedures. The judiciary obtains this exceptional power to reject constitutional amendments which other democratic nations seldom grant their judicial branch. The Court has declared this power indispensable to defend the fundamental rights and stop legislative intrusions into constitutional principles. The Supreme Court founded this principle to safeguard “the originality of the basic structure of the Indian constitution” against any “alterations to the ideals of the constitution”.

Comparative Analysis with Other Democratic Constitutions

The uniqueness of the Indian position needs proper evaluation that requires an examination of other democratic constitutions regarding their judicial independence and review powers.

The United States Model: Checks and Balances

US Supreme Court, Washington DC

Unlike India’s constitution the United States Constitution fails to mention judicial autonomy as a complete safeguard against constitutional amendments. Judicial Review originated during the Marbury v Madison judgment that the US Supreme Court announced in 1803. Through judicial interpretation of the Constitution laid out in Marbury v. Madison (1803) the judges obtained their review powers apart from explicit textual foundations. Judicial supremacy does not exist in the American system since multiple branches maintain their power to monitor each other’s actions.
The federal judgeship selection method includes presidential candidate nomination followed by congressional validation which forms a link between legislative and executive branches. The US Supreme Court has refrained from stating authority to render constitutional amendments invalid through evaluation of their core content instead of process-based criteria. The United States follows a democratic process to amend constitutional balance that may control judicial power through proper amendment procedures. The theory contradicts the Indian basic structure doctrine because US judiciary permits procedural changes to constitutional amendments that go beyond procedural constraints.

Canada: Dialogue Theory and Notwithstanding Clause

Supreme court of Canada, Ottawa

Canadian constitutional arrangements function differently than those of India through unique mechanisms. The Canadian Constitution includes Section 33 which permits parliamentary use of the “notwithstanding” provision yet India lacks this judicial suspension power. Parliament together with provincial legislatures retain the authority to prevent specific constitutional rights interpretations from taking effect through this provision while law works towards regranting authority to courts at a future date. The process leads to an academic concept referred to as judicial-legislative dialog.
The Canadian approach maintains that the interpretation of judges regarding the law must yield to legislative selection of legal choices. Under Canadian constitutional interpretation various degrees of government agree legitimately about constitutional reading interpretations. The Canadian legislative efforts face barriers in reforming judicial review since judges maintain diverse perspectives but the actual problems emerge from disagreeing reading methods rather than maintaining an unchangeable judicial authority. Democratic leadership in Canada maintains judicial control while avoiding the creation of an unalterable judicial autonomy protected by constitutional rights.

Australia: Parliamentary Sovereignty and Statutory Interpretation

Australian High Court, Canberrra

Australia implements a legal system built on parliamentary superiority together with independent judicial power which serves as its fundamental principles. The Australian High Court conducts judicial review from within its borders with complete parliamentary purpose dominance compared to Indian court practices. The process of reforming judicial review laws through legislation in Australia faces unexpected challenges since judges keep a firm grip on this domain. The main difficulties in drafting and analyzing laws stem from unclear legislative language although judicial autonomy does not exceed these limitations.
Every Australian authority operates independently from one another to carry out their assigned responsibilities without the judiciary encroaching upon the legislative authority. Under the Indian basic structure doctrine there exists an essential difference compared to Australian approaches concerning democratic oversight of judicial independence. In Australian court operations the judicial body maintains classic common law responses and equitable judgment tools and implements interpretation functions yet explicitly does not handle changes to the constitutional document.

Critical Assessment of the Indian Supreme Court’s Position

An assessment of multiple critical studies about Indian Supreme Court judicial autonomy doctrine should help determine any contradictions between theoretical approaches and practical implementations.

Theoretical Inconsistencies

The judiciary establishes authority to restrict constitutional amendments by using the basic structure doctrine although this power not present in constitutional text. The Indian Constitutional provision in Article 368 enables the Indian Parliament to implement amendment procedures even though it fails to establish “basic structure” restrictions on amendable provisions. The judiciary struggles to link its constitutional interpretations of amendments with its opposing view regarding Parliament’s amendments for fundamental principles.
Including judicial autonomy as part of the unamendable structure gives the court an unquestionable authority to decide all its own powers. Through this practice of self-reference judicial bodies set their own power boundaries but these actions lead to immediate conflicts because judgments about power supposedly emerge from the courts rather than representative institutions. The Court declares judicial powers to deny amendments beyond the amendment framework which establishes a self-serving logical loop through which democratic authority diminishes while following established constitutional norms.

Democratic Accountability Concerns

Judicial autonomy as an unchangeable principle leads authorities to challenge essential matters about the power of elected representatives. The complete autonomous power of judges in a constitutional democracy becomes problematic when critics identify it as “juristocracy” because of potential judicial monopolies. Democratic nations have developed institutional structures to let democratic bodies oversee judicial power through appointment procedures and judicial amendment capabilities as well as legislative responses after court decisions.
The Modi government faces contemporary problems with judicial independence because of problems with Indian judicial system appointment procedures and case allocation practices. The direct threats to judicial independence need separation from theoretical analysis about democratic limitations on judicial freedom. The four senior justices’ concerns about political manipulation of the judiciary prove we need oversight of judicial independence although they do not prove it should be beyond democratic oversight.

Comparison with Alternative Models

Research into established democracies confirms their support for judicial independence regardless of whether the principle has an immutable constitutional status. The judicial institutions of the United States along with Canada and Australia maintain efficient operations without formally adopting the Indian constitutional principle of basic structure doctrine. Judicial autonomy sustains by establishing proper institutions alongside political values and through constitutional interpretation mechanisms that provide oversight responsibilities to the legislative branch.
Canadian dialogic methods together with Australian exact legislative drafting procedures establish proper judicial independence while maintaining judicial control of the system. These systems maintain a division of powers with operation by maintaining democratic development between organizational branches. The available comparative review identifies India as a unique democratic system since its courts enforce measures that would impede essential democratic administration operations.

“Judicial Supremacy” Argument

The Indian Supreme Court’s position regarding judicial independence as interpreted through the basic structure doctrine contains numerous issues according to analytical evaluation.
A serious flaw exists because the basic structure doctrine fails to find support in any text within India’s Constitution. The alterations to the Indian Constitution through amendments lack any specified constraints associated with the “basic structure” doctrine. The Founding Fathers incorporated judicial independence in the Constitution without imposing any provisions to stop amendments of the fundamental law. The Indian judiciary invented the basic structure doctrine instead of incorporating it into the fundamental composition of the Indian constitution.
The Indian Supreme Court understands its shortcomings through recent rulings displayed by the judicial system. During September 2024 Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar determined in their judicial decision that “even judges of higher judiciary are fallible” and “it is necessary that constitutional courts recognize errors that may have crept into their judicial orders and rectify the same”. The existence of judicial mistakes stands in direct conflict with the notion of supreme judicial interpretation of constitutional laws. Finality of judgments maintains complete significance according to the Court though it continues statements about creating space to correct errors so justice can prevail.

Democratic Theory Concerns

The theory of democracy sees judicial autonomy that cannot be amended as a fundamental issue which undermines the legal basis of courts. The citizens in constitutional democratic nations maintain their sovereign power by using their representatives and they also control constitutional revision procedures. The Court exercises this constitutional decision to keep judicial independence away from any potential democratic changes.
The adopted position creates substantial challenges for achieving generational justice. Future generations would face limitation to a single understanding of judicial power because of an amendment-proof declaration that could prohibit democratic development according to changing requirements. The withdrawal of judicial oversight by democratic institutions remains permanent even according to economic analyses of constitutional theories.

Practical Governance Challenges

The autonomy path of the judiciary from the basic structure doctrine creates practical challenges for the government. A conflict emerges between judicial institutions and elected bodies whenever courts extend their interpretation rights past constitutional amendment regulations. A scholarly evaluation describes the conflict between judicial power claims and claims made by the executive and legislative about democracy as an “unresolved tension” that affects Indian constitutional governance.
The doctrine creates unanswered questions about which constitutional provisions will later be recognized as deriving from basic structure concepts which results in limited legislative freedom. This doctrine maintains an undefined boundary because the Court has expanded the eligible features that classify as basic structure elements. The basic structure doctrine established by the courts exists as an ill-defined concept because its boundaries directly oppose clear constitutional statements in other national charters.

Conclusion

Judicial independence in India became an unalterable constitutional principle because of the basic structure doctrine which prevents legislative amendments by the Supreme Court. The concept of judicial independence that cannot be adjusted through democratic means distinguishes India from other democracies although it raises questions about democratic control and judicial autonomy.
The doctrine shows critical deficiencies which become visible when states examine their constitutional structures. Various signs show that India might exceed its legitimate authority regarding judicial supremacy despite lacking textual foundation and creating obstacles with theoretical aspects and management challenges. Judicial independence continues to function within proper democratic oversight because the United States together with Canada and Australia demonstrate this model especially well.
The combination between judicial independence and democratic procedures for constitutional amendment will lead to a more effective system that adopts global constitutional standards for maintaining impartial judiciaries within constitutional democracies.

References

Books

  • H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (4th ed., Reprint 2023)
  • The U.S. Constitution: Explained—Clause by Clause—for Every American Today. Annotated by
  • Ray Raphael.
  • Hogg, Peter W. “Book Review: The Making of the Australian Constitution, by J. A. La Nauze.”
  • Canadian Bar Review 51.4 (1973): 728-730.
  • Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada, (Toronto: Thomson Reuters)

Case Laws

  • Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643
  • His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs. State of Keraa[1973] Supp. (1) S.C.R. 1
  • Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India And State Of Bihar, 1951 AIR 458
  • Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr,1975 AIR 1590
  • Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. is 1980 AIR 1789
  • Waman Rao & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 362
  • A.K. Roy & Others vs. Union of India 1982 1 SCC 271
  • Union of India & Ors. vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.1989 2 SCC 754 5
  • Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club vs. Chander Hass 2008 1 SCC 683
  • State of West Bengal vs. Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, 2010 3 SCC 571
  • Kalpana Mehta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.2018 7 SCC 1
  • Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. vs. High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2024 3 SCC 799
  • Association for Democratic Reforms vs. Union of India, 2024 5 SCC 1
  • In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, 2024 INSC 789O

Online References:

What is in a name?

EnsuresLeave a comment

So great to be back to what I do the worst…. Blogging. There was no particular reason for not jotting down my silly thoughts but attribute it to plain laziness. Lest blogsite kick me out of the place for extended inactivity, decided to put down something. I have inserted a deliberate grammatical error through this blog for obvious reasons. My English teacher may not approve it but america has ceased to be a “Proper” noun for me.

It has been such a “happening” time across the world. Lehmann brothers started it all and everything was a big roller coaster ride, the only difference we only hit the troughs and crests never seem to come at all. World is in a financial mess…american economy has taken an almost “point of no return” beating, the stage managed wars notwithstanding. This just proves that relying on war to boost your financials make bad economic sense atleast in the long term. Then the americans thought they found their messaiah, a panacea for all the ills facing their society in the form of their president elect, barrack obama. But then there were some right wing members of a church who were not convinced that he is christian enough because he did not surrender himself a. la Cassius Clay – Check this out!!!(http://hubpages.com/hub/Barack-What-is-in-a-Name). I am no big fan of anything american much less of obama. Did someone say, he used his perceived disadvantage to its hilt – I am Black, but then where else but in america can these things happen – on his first visit I am waiting for the time he gets introduced to our own Laloo, the sole moral guardian of the country. He, who was worried about Biharis in Mumbai while more Biharis were being raped, murdered and women paraded naked in Bihar itself. Since Railways was his inherited property, he had the temerity to threaten cancellation of trains to protect the Non-resident Biharis. By the way, he had a NAME makeover from Lalu to Laloo to bring him even better luck.

But then the bane of the modern world is the “NAME” – calling that people indulge in. NAME of Philosophy, NAME of people, NAME of civilization, NAME of religion, NAME of God – any NAME is enough to cause the next “yet to be NAMEd” world war. In the part of the world that I live in “Secularism” is another NAME used to divide the great Nation called India (Great despite the recession in the world – hey! we lost the least number of jobs, never saw any person shooting themselves or others due to depression). And this despite the doomsday predictions of hackneyed Media (proves who are their real masters, they just extrapolate their news theory from their western masters to India which proved everyone wrong).

Isn’t NAME important? I cannot imagine myself being known by another NAME – I am sure I would become less lovable or adorable to myself. Like the learned Bard said, “Rose by any other NAME would just smell as sweet” – Pardon him, the “NAMERS” of thw world for he had not seen the genetically modified roses. The real trigger was a mail from my friend call him “X” for want of easy to remember NAME, in the Gulf who recently was being troubled by his friend, let us NAME him, “Y” who embraced another religion (yeah, another NAME, little realizing that NAME of the religion does not matter, every religion says the same stuff). But then!!! this friend retained his original NAME despite the conversion. NAME is important…eh (heights of possessiveness, just like me ) Out of desperation, “X” sought advise on another forum asking the members to help him counter “Y”. Here was my reply (of course, cannot be attributed as original work to my NAME – but then NAME does not matter and the stuff matters, isnt it? especially when it comes to me). Copyright: No one dare copy this without my express permission Signed under my NAME (though it is not my original)

On a serious note, I love and thank my friend NAME: Charles Gibson from Spain for this post: thanks Charlie (sorry for changing the NAME)

Three men, one English, one Arab and one Indian were walking together and came to a pool of water. The Englishman said ‘lets drink some water’. Then the Arab said ‘That is not water, it is الماء. Lets drink some الماء.’ Then the Indian said ‘Nonsense, its jala. Lets drink some jala.’ So the argument began and all went thirsty.

We are fools to argue over NAMES while we go thirsty. The important thing is to drink the water. What it is called or the path we take to reach the spring are irrelevant. What is important is the essence of the meaning of each NAME, the objective of each path. In human life the essence of all paths is eventually to arrive at the Truth, to realise the Self. Even if this search for God is unconscious in some and conscious in others, it is going on in all none the less.

We argue over and place one term or philosophy over another, because we are still attached to NAMES and forms. The essence is beyond this, so each NAME, each form, each philosophy, each religion has its rightful place. For one man, who approaches with rational knowledge, some philosophies might be considered as a higher truth and others as a lower truth. To another, who measures by love or feeling, this might be reversed. This is useful for each man to find his best way to prepare to realise the Self. However if this relative distinction of higher and lower truth for each man is mistaken for an absolute truth, again we are plunged into ignorance.

One man might read nondual philosophy and have no understanding of it, then he might go to the temple and realise the Self, after devoting himself to a deity. Another man might feel nothing in the temple and through sheer depth of knowledge prepare himself to realise the Self. Each man, if he has realized the Self, will not then turn to the other and argue. He will rather have sated his thirst for God.

So, we can recognize in this way, that any apparent conflict of philosophy or opinion is only our own ignorance. A man who knows the Self sees no conflict. Go to that place, don’t tarry on the path and throw stones at your fellow travelers. We are that which is infinite, perfect and completely one.

Lovely, wasn’t it?
Well until I find time and mood (and a NAME) for my next blog… Ciao