living love is happiness
By Kulamarva Balakrishna
(challenging questions are welcome)
Vienna,Sunday,January 6,2008:I have said yesterday
ignorance is infinite,unreal,=mithya=,wild goose chase
known in classic Sanskrit =mriga trishnika=.What is
not comprehensible.On the other hand reality is finite,
comprehensible.Real,mind,it has the form of happiness
which is love.That is what is meant by =sat chit ananda=.
Even before coming to happiness and love,we are
made aware =aum= universal radiating energy,=tat=
that identified, =sat= reality.It is in search of this reality
we approach yoga.So when Patanjali starts teaching
yoga system, be begins his sutras, cryptic statements
meant to be explained by the words =atha yoga
anushasanam= now the teaching of the yoga.It implies
yoga is not his creation,it has been there in use.He
is only elaborating it for students.
In other words the sutras are sub-heads of the whole
system science.These are mile stones.The teacher
and the student walk together from one mile stone
to the next.In the process they cover the distance
by understanding.They mile stones or sutras then
serve as reference points,book marks for memory.
The walking together is an exercise.That is
experiencing the depth of knowledge together
by guru and shishya,teacher and disciple.An
opportunity for interaction and especially for the
student a chance to challenge if he remains
unconvinced.
Yoga system is part of the six darshanas or visionary
system of Hindu intellectuals of the old.The six
are 1)nyaya=logic,2) vaisheshika=identifying
significance,3) samkhya=theory 4)yoga=unity
by practice,5) purva mimansa=investigation into
the veda teachings, and 6) vedanta=the sum total
of the veda teachings.These make three inter-
related couples.Thus yoga is based on samkhya
theory.By logic significance is established.On
the basis of the theory unity is accomplished.
By investigation the essence of the vedas
is derived.Therefore yoga helps us to live the
ultimate philosophy of universal love,which is
the true nature of happiness in classic Hinduism.
Then it is clear yoga is not a circus of any kind.
It is living unity by connecting our lives to the
entire universal nature.All the so called yoga
gurus may or may not have walked all the
miles together or parts with guru or alone.If they
have covered the entire distance they are one
with nature like the Buddha,Shakya simha,
=sarvartha siddha= enlightened one.Without
knowing the whole the knowledge remains
incomplete.Those who advertise without
knowing are not to be trusted and followed.
It is advisable not to obey the silly cash grabbing
or power grabbing gurus.Avoid them.As Leo
Tolstoy wrote only recently believe the Kingdom
of god is within you.That is your awakened mind.
That is the message of yoga, Hindu applied
mind science.(end)
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) representing
the 56 Islamic States renewed its attack on the Universality of
Human Rights at the 6th Session of the Human Rights Council
that ended on December 14.
On Human Rights Day,December 10, Ambassador Masood Khan,
of Pakistan speaking on behalf of the OIC, claimed that the 1990
Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam
“.. is not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights.
It complements the Universal Declaration as it addresses
religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries”.
Not an alternative?But rival. Even a cursory reading of the
Cairo Declaration shows just how widely its definition of human
rights differs from those of the UDHR.No “complementary”
document (the word implies adding to, not subtracting from)
should restrict the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration.
Yet this is precisely what the Cairo Declaration does. Under
Shari’ah law a woman has no personal autonomy. A women’s
word or the word of a non-Muslim counts as half that of a
Muslim man; and they are valued as half that of a Muslim man.
No woman is considered an autonomous individual but needs
a guardian: her father, husband, son or another male relative,
and may not make autonomous decisions. Freedom of religion
is limited to freedom to become and remain a Muslim.
Apostasy and any actions or statements considered
blasphemous are harshly punished, in some states by death.
Ann Elizabeth Meijer in her classic analysis “Islam and Human
Rights” describes the declaration as not so much a statement
of human rights as a statement of man’s responsibilities towards
God. According to Meyer (p66):
“International law does not accept that fundamental
human rights may be restricted – much less permanently
curtailed – by reference to the requirements of any particular
religion. International law does not provide any warrant for
depriving Muslims of human rights by according primacy to
Islamic criteria.”
In the same speech to the Human Rights Council, Ambassador
Khan said that “The OIC was considering the establishment of
an independent permanent body to promote human rights in
accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration”, and
he referred to a decision taken by the May 2007 Islamic
Conference of Foreign Ministers to work on an Islamic Charter
of Human Rights, a convention of women’s rights in Islam and
an Islamic Covenant against Racial Discrimination. Not an
alternative?
Our attempted rebuttal
It was disappointing that no delegation was prepared to
challenge the absurdity of Pakistan’s claim. IHEU,
=International Humanistic Ethical Union=collaboration
with one other NGO attempted to do so in the interactive
dialogue the following day but our intervention was ruled
“out of order” and our text stricken from the record.
Unwilling to let the matter rest, I joined David Littman of
the World Union for Progressive Judaism in writing to
Louise Arbour, the High Commissioner for Human Rights
(see full text below) requesting a legal ruling as to whether
the proposed charter based on The Cairo declaration would
conflict with the Universal Declaration.
(See below for the full text.)
The elimination of discrimination based
on religion or belief
On 14 December at the Human Rights Council Pakistan,
again speaking for the OIC, raised objections to the resolution
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief. Despite many weeks of work seeking
a compromise with the European Union on this, the OIC had
been unable to accept the right to change one’s religion. This
objection was also raised by Egypt, Malaysia and many other
Islamic states. The resolution also called for the renewal for a
further three years of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur
on Freedom of Religion or Belief. South Africa objected to the
renewal because they found it “inconceivable that her mandate
could be silent on monitoring the role that may be played by
the media in inciting religious hatred”.
In the event none of the states objecting to the resolution
actually voted against – thereby maintaining the myth of
their support for universal human rights. What they did do
was abstain, safe in the knowledge that under the rules of
procedure an abstention is as good as a vote against since to
be adopted any resolution requires a majority of member
states to vote in favour.
Defamation of Religion
In September 2007 the European Union had attempted to
introduce a resolution in the Human Rights Council on the
elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief, but
its introduction was deferred until December in an attempt
by the sponsors to obtain the support of the OIC. Despite
quite intensive negotiations, however, it became clear that
no agreement would be possible. On December 14, the
Pakistani delegate, again speaking for the OIC, said that
differences remained on five important issues, inter alia:
respect for all religions and beliefs, and respect for national
laws and religious norms about the right to change one’s
religion. “Hence, we dissociate ourselves from operative
paragraph 9(a) because of its phrase ‘including the right
to change one’s religion or belief’”. Yet this right is clearly
enshrined in Article 18 of the UDHR to which all but one of
the Islamic states is signatory.
In the event none of the states objecting to the resolution
actually voted against it – thereby maintaining the myth
of their support for universal human rights. What they did
do however was abstain, safe in the knowledge that in order
to be adopted any resolution requires a majority of member
states to vote in favour, and their abstentions were therefore
equivalent to votes against the resolution. Despite this
opposition the resolution was carried by 29 votes to zer0, with
18 abstentions.
Defamation of Religion
On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted
a resolution “Combating Defamation of Religions” by 108
votes to 51 with 25 abstentions. Similar resolutions have
been adopted for the past seven years by the old Commission
for Human Rights and by the new Council. This is the first
time, however, that such a resolution had been passed by
the General Assembly.The resolution expresses “deep concern
about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations
of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief”.
But the only religion mentioned by name is Islam. The resolution
also notes with deep concern, “the intensification of the campaign
to defame religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim
minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11/9/2001”.
It emphasises that whilst everyone has the right to freedom of
expression, this should be exercised with responsibility – and
may therefore be subject to limitations, inter alia “for respect
for religions and beliefs”.
The Western delegations stood firm, however, in their opposition
to this resolution. The Portuguese delegate, speaking for the EU,
explained clearly why:
“The European Union does not see the concept of ‘defamation of
religions’ as a valid one in a human rights discourse. From a human
rights perspective, members of religious or belief communities
should not be viewed as parts of homogenous entities.International
human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of
their freedom of religion or belief, rather than the religions as such.”
Notwithstanding these objections, those opposing the resolution
found themselves on the losing side of a two-to-one majority in
favour. The implications of this resolution for freedom to criticise
religious laws and practices are obvious. Armed with UN approval
for their actions, states may now legislate against any show of disrespect
for religion, however they may choose to define “disrespect”.
The Islamic states see human rights exclusively in Islamic terms,
and by sheer weight of numbers this view is becoming dominant
within the UN system. The implications for the universality of
human rights are ominous.
Letter to Mrs. Louise Arbour, High
Commissioner for Human Rights
20 December 2007
Your Excellency,
Primacy of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
The message of OIC Secretary-General, Prof. Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu, on the occasion of Human Rights Day has just
come to our attention, and his statement is noteworthy.
It reads, in part:
Respect of Human Rights through effective protection and
promotion of equality, civil liberties and social justice is a
milestone in the OIC Ten Year Plan of Action. In this regard
the OIC General Secretariat is considering the establishment
of [an] independent permanent body to promote Human Rights
in the Member States in accordance with the provisions of the
OIC Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and to
elaborate an OIC Charter on Human Rights. The OIC is also
committed to encourage its member States to reinforce their
national laws and regulations in order to guaranty strict respect
for Human Right[s].”
On Friday, December 14, I handed to you the two statements
we addressed to the Council on December 11, one concerning
Darfur, the other the primacy of the UDHR. We were however
unable to complete the latter statement because of a procedural
ruling by the President, Ambassador Toru Romulus da Costea,
but it was officially circulated at the plenum with the Secretariat’s
approval.In this statement, we noted:
“We were surprised that Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan,
speaking yesterday morning on behalf of the OIC, claimed that
the Cairo Declaration was “not an alternative competing
worldview on human rights”, but failed to mention the
shari’a law as “the only source of reference” (articles 24
and 25) in that same Declaration – the shari’a law where
there is no equality between Muslim men and women,
and between Muslims and non-Muslims.”
The Final Communiqué of the Third Extraordinary Session
of the Islamic Summit held in Mecca on 7-8 December 2005
(…) provides a clear message regarding the UN system of
human rights:
“The Conference called for considering the possibility of
establishing an independent permanent body to promote
human rights in Member States as well as the possibility
in preparing an Islamic Charter on Human Rights in
accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration
on Human Rights in Islam and interact with the United
Nations and other relevant international bodies.”
We seriously question whether such a body would be
“complementary” to the Human Rights Council or whether,
given the wording of the Cairo Declaration, it will have
shari’a law as its “only source of reference” and be seen
as an alternative.
On 14 September 2000, in reply to a communication from
the Association for World Education as to the “universality”
of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam
(published in Volume II: Regional Instruments, OHCHR,
1997, pp.477-84 of A Compilation of International Instruments),
the legal advisor to the then HCHR replied:
“The Member States which have acceded to and ratified
United Nations Human Rights Conventions remain bound,
under all circumstances, by the provisions of those texts
as well as the erge omnes obligations under customary
international law.”
We are writing to you today to request an official ruling from
your legal advisor as to whether the above official statement
on Human Rights Day by the OIC Secretary General– in regard
to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and a future
“Islamic Charter” based on shari’a law – would clash with the
UDHR and the Universal Instruments (in, A Compilation..
Volume I, 1993).
Please accept our season’s greetings, and our sincere
appreciation for your multifarious efforts in holding to the
highest standards of human rights and in guiding the
international community along that straight and narrow
path toward an appreciation of the universality of the UDHR.
Respectfully,
David G. Littman
WUPJ Representative to the UNO, Geneva and
Roy W Brown
IHEU main representative, UN Geneva (end)