LAL DED OR LALLESHWARI: A SHAIVITE PRECURSOR OF THE NORTHERN BHAKTI TRADITION

                                                                                

(  A Lal Vaakh painted on Pashmina cloth by Artist Masood Hussain... Complete details at PS  below the write-up)

LAL DED OR LALLESHWARI: A SHAIVITE PRECURSOR OF THE NORTHERN BHAKTI TRADITION

 

WAS LAL DED A LEADER OF INDIA'S  BHAKTI  MOVEMENT?

The answer requires a distinction between two different historical claims. If by the Bhakti movement we mean the entire history of devotional religion in India, Lal Ded cannot be called its founder or first leader. Devotional traditions are much older than her. The Tamil Alvars and Nayanars, the Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions of southern India, Ramanuja, Basavanna and several other teachers and saints belong to earlier phases of India's devotional history. But if the question concerns the development of the great northern Bhakti and Sant traditions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Lal Ded assumes a far more important position. She belonged to the fourteenth century. She therefore preceded Kabir, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya, Mirabai and Tulsidas. More significantly, several ideas that became central to later northern Bhakti were already powerfully expressed in her poetry. She challenged empty ritual, criticised religious pretension, directed the seeker towards inner experience, emphasised spiritual guidance, used the vernacular to communicate profound ideas and brought together Yoga, knowledge and devotion. The historical argument, therefore, is not that Lal Ded founded Bhakti or that every later Bhakti saint borrowed directly from her. The argument is more precise.

Lal Ded was an important early northern Indian Shaivite voice whose spiritual and literary ideas anticipated several features that later became characteristic of northern Bhakti and Sant poetry. This distinction is essential. It gives Lal Ded her proper historical importance without making a claim that the evidence cannot sustain.

FROM ANCIENT BHAKTI TO THE NORTHERN FLOWERING

Bhakti is not a single historical movement that suddenly appeared in medieval India. It is a long and diverse Indian tradition of devotion, surrender, remembrance and direct relationship with the Divine. The Alvars and Nayanars had already created powerful devotional traditions in southern India centuries before Lal Ded. Ramanuja developed a major philosophical account of devotion. Basavanna and the Virashaiva tradition placed devotion to Shiva alongside criticism of social and ritual hierarchy. Jnaneshwar brought together knowledge, Yoga and devotion in Maharashtra, while Namdev developed the Varkari tradition centred upon Vithoba. The later northern flowering included Ramananda, Kabir, Ravidas, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya, Mirabai, Surdas and Tulsidas, among others. The chronology is significant. The Alvars and Nayanars belong broadly to the sixth to ninth centuries. Ramanuja belongs to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Basavanna belongs to the twelfth century. Jnaneshwar belongs to the thirteenth century. Namdev belongs to the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. Lal Ded belongs to the fourteenth century. Ramananda belongs broadly to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Kabir belongs to the fifteenth century. Guru Nanak was born in 1469. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu belongs to the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Mirabai belongs to the sixteenth century. Tulsidas belongs to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Tukaram belongs to the seventeenth century.

Lal Ded therefore cannot be placed at the beginning of the entire Bhakti tradition. But she occupies a significant chronological position before the great northern Sant and Bhakti flowering.

 THE KASHMIR OF LAL DED AND HER SHAIVITE WORLD

The historical setting is essential to understanding her. The Kashmir of Lal Ded's formative years was fundamentally shaped by its indigenous Hindu civilisation, especially Shaivism and Shakta traditions, together with the intellectual legacy of Buddhism and Sanskrit learning. Islam began to make its presence felt in Kashmir during the latter part of Lal Ded's lifetime. Her own intellectual and spiritual formation, however, belonged unmistakably to the indigenous Shaivite world of Kashmir.

Lal Ded was fundamentally a Shaivite mystic and yogini. Her thought belongs to the philosophical environment of Kashmir Shaivism, with its profound concern with consciousness, the Self, manifestation and Paramashiva. This is important because later interpretations sometimes detach her from her Shaivite foundation in order to make her fit a more general category of mysticism. Her poetry does not require such a reconstruction. Her criticism of ritualism is intelligible from within her own tradition. She acknowledges the supremacy of Shiva. What she rejects is the reduction of Shiva to external ritual or material representation.

 Her criticism of stone worship ( Deev vatta divro vatta…. ) should therefore be understood carefully. She challenged the belief that an external object, by itself, could provide liberation. The problem was not stone or the sacred image as such. The problem was the assumption that mechanical worship could substitute for inner realisation.

HER REVOLT AGAINST RELIGIOUS FORMALISM

This inward emphasis ( Nebara dopnam andhar atchun …. ) is one of the strongest points of contact between Lal Ded and the later Bhakti and Sant traditions. She questions religious practice when it becomes mechanical. A person may perform ceremonies and remain inwardly ignorant. A person may possess religious learning without possessing spiritual knowledge. A person may display religious identity while remaining dominated by desire and ego. For Lal Ded, genuine religion begins where mere external observance becomes inward experience. This is a reforming impulse rather than a rejection of religion. She demands that spiritual practice should produce transformation.

 The later Sant tradition would repeatedly return to the same problem. Kabir attacked hollow ritual. Guru Nanak distinguished genuine remembrance from empty observance. Other Bhakti poets similarly challenged the assumption that outward religious practice was sufficient for spiritual attainment. The resemblance is important, but Lal Ded's own framework remains Shaivite and yogic.

THE YOGIC PATH AND THE LANGUAGE OF SYMBOLS

Lal Ded's significance becomes clearer when she is seen not merely as a devotional poet but as a yogini. Her poetry reflects concern with the body, breath, concentration and inner transformation. Pranayama ( Kar manas ta pawanas sangaath …..) belongs to this discipline, while Anahad Nada, the unstruck inner sound, points towards subtler forms of spiritual experience. Her symbolic language makes difficult ideas accessible through familiar objects. The loom and thread suggest the relationship between multiplicity and unity. The Charkha evokes continuous movement. The swan represents discrimination between the real and unreal. The lotus suggests spiritual unfolding. The Chakki or mill ( Gratta chhuyi pheraan …. ) evokes the pressures of worldly existence. Such symbols later became familiar within Indian devotional poetry. They should not, however, automatically be treated as evidence of direct borrowing from Lal Ded. Most belong to a much older Indian symbolic vocabulary. What is important is the way Lal Ded employs them within her own spiritual system.

 THE INNER JOURNEY FROM MAYA JAAL TO PRAKASH DHAAM

Lal Ded's wider vocabulary makes that system clearer. The Guru is the guide who directs the seeker towards realisation. Omkar( Akuyi omkaar yus naabhi dharey …….)  points towards primordial sacred sound. Anahad Nada represents the inward discovery of subtle sound. Maya Jaal represents entanglement in worldly appearances, attachment and desire. Bhavasagara represents the ocean of worldly existence through which the seeker must pass. Ahankara represents the limited ego sense that creates separateness. Prakash Dhaam ( Adha  Lal ba vaatchis prakaash dhaam…)  represents illumination. These are not disconnected images. They describe different stages and dimensions of the inward journey. The seeker begins in the web of attachment, struggles with the limitations of ego, receives guidance, disciplines consciousness and moves towards illumination. The crossing of the Bhavasagara is therefore not simply an escape from the physical world. It is freedom from the forces that keep consciousness bound. At the centre of this process is the recognition of Shiva as universal consciousness. Shiva is not confined to one temple, image or sacred location. The Divine pervades existence.

This provides the philosophical foundation for Lal Ded's criticism of purely external worship.

 THE DISCIPLINE OF BALANCE

The inward journey does not demand theatrical rejection of worldly life. Lal Ded's spiritual discipline also requires balance. The seeker should neither become enslaved by desire nor turn renunciation into another form of ego ( na khyena banakh ahankaari…). The middle path is a disciplined way of living in which action is guided by awareness. The world remains the field of experience, but attachment to it is gradually loosened. This practical dimension is important because Lal Ded's spirituality is not merely speculative philosophy. It is a discipline of transformation.

LAL DED AND THE SAINTS WHO CAME BEFORE AND AFTER HER

Lal Ded's relationship with the larger Bhakti tradition becomes clearer when individual figures are considered in chronological order. Jnaneshwar preceded her. His Dnyaneshwari brought the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita into Marathi and demonstrated that sophisticated spiritual thought could be expressed in a regional language. Lal Ded performs a comparable linguistic act in Kashmiri, although her philosophical foundation is Kashmir Shaivism. Namdev, too, belongs partly to the period immediately before Lal Ded. His devotion to Vithoba belongs to the Varkari tradition and is principally Vaishnava. Lal Ded is Shaivite. Their theological differences are therefore substantial, but both demonstrate the movement from external religious representation towards inner spiritual experience.

With Kabir, the comparison becomes particularly striking. Kabir belonged to the fifteenth century. Both he and Lal Ded challenged ritualism, religious hypocrisy and spiritual pretension. Both emphasised direct experience, the importance of the Guru and the overcoming of ego. Both used familiar objects as spiritual metaphors. Yet Kabir's Divine is frequently expressed in Nirguna terms, beyond conventional attributes and forms, whereas Lal Ded remains rooted in the Shaivite understanding of supreme consciousness. The similarity should therefore be understood as conceptual affinity and historical precedence, not as proof that Kabir simply followed Lal Ded.

Guru Nanak, born in 1469, likewise came considerably later. His teaching emphasised the One, remembrance of the Divine Name, ethical living, honest work, service and rejection of hollow ritual. His concern with ego and spiritual guidance creates another striking comparison with Lal Ded. Yet Guru Nanak developed the foundations of the Sikh tradition, while Lal Ded remained within the Shaivite world of Kashmir.

 Mirabai, Chaitanya and Tulsidas belong to later generations. Mirabai's Krishna devotion is very different from Lal Ded's Shaivism, but both women asserted an independent spiritual voice against restrictive social expectations. Chaitanya's ecstatic Krishna Bhakti and communal Kirtan differ sharply from Lal Ded's solitary yogic path. Both nevertheless place direct spiritual experience above dry intellectualism.

Tulsidas's Rama Bhakti is principally Saguna, whereas Lal Ded's Shaivite vision is grounded in supreme consciousness. Their common significance lies particularly in language. Both demonstrate the capacity of a regional language to carry profound spiritual thought.

THE VERNACULAR TRANSFORMATION

This question of language is central to Lal Ded's historical position. India possessed an immense Sanskrit philosophical literature, but the medieval period witnessed an increasing movement of spiritual expression into regional languages. Lal Ded's vakhs are an important part of this transformation. She expressed difficult ideas about consciousness, Yoga, ego, liberation and Divine presence in the Kashmiri of her period, grounded in Sanskrit. Jnaneshwar did so in Marathi. Kabir used the vernacular idioms of North India. Guru Nanak communicated through the language of his devotional compositions. Mirabai expressed Krishna devotion through the languages of her region. Tulsidas transformed Awadhi into a monumental vehicle of Rama Bhakti.

The vernacular therefore became more than a literary medium. It became a means of bringing serious spiritual reflection into wider social circulation. This is one of the strongest reasons for placing Lal Ded within the historical development of northern vernacular Bhakti.

WHY LAL DED CAN BE CALLED A PRECURSOR

The argument can now be stated without exaggeration. Lal Ded was not the founder of Bhakti. She did not stand at the beginning of India's devotional history. Nor is there sufficient evidence to say that Kabir, Guru Nanak, Mirabai or the other later saints directly borrowed their teachings from her. The historical case is different.

Lal Ded was an early fourteenth-century northern Indian voice who articulated several themes that became increasingly prominent in later northern Bhakti and Sant traditions. She placed inner experience above mechanical ritual. She challenged religious hypocrisy. She gave the Guru a significant place in spiritual life. She brought Shaivism , Yoga, knowledge and devotion together. She explored the problem of ego and attachment. She used ordinary images to communicate spiritual ideas. She employed the vernacular as a vehicle for serious philosophical reflection. Her chronological priority makes these parallels historically noteworthy. The claim is therefore one of precedence and conceptual continuity, not direct literary descent.

A DISTINCTIVE UNION OF YOGA, JNANA AND BHAKTI

Lal Ded's own spiritual position becomes clearer when Yoga, Jnana and Bhakti are considered together. Yoga disciplines body, breath and mind. Jnana seeks knowledge of reality. Bhakti approaches the Divine through devotion. Lal Ded does not treat these as mutually exclusive. Yoga becomes a discipline of awakening. Knowledge becomes realisation rather than mere intellectual accumulation. Devotion becomes an inward orientation towards the Divine. This combination helps explain why Lal Ded occupies such a distinctive place in medieval Indian spirituality. She is neither simply a devotional singer nor merely a philosophical poet. Her poetry brings together the experience of the Yogini, the insight of the philosopher and the intensity of the devotee.

THE HISTORICAL PLACE OF LAL DED

The proper historical formulation is therefore neither that Lal Ded founded the Bhakti movement nor that she was merely one more saint within a movement already fully formed. She belongs to the long history of Indian Bhakti, but she also represents an important stage in the development of northern vernacular spirituality. She came before the great northern flowering of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. She came from a mature Shaivite intellectual tradition. She expressed mystical and yogic ideas in Kashmiri. Several of the concerns that later became prominent in northern Bhakti were already present in her work. Her importance lies in that historical position.

 CONCLUSION

Lal Ded should be remembered neither as the founder of India's Bhakti tradition nor as a generic mystic detached from her historical and philosophical background. She was a fourteenth-century Kashmiri Shaivite Yogini whose poetry belongs to the long Indian history of devotion while also anticipating important features of the later northern Bhakti and Sant traditions. Her chronological position matters. She preceded Kabir, Guru Nanak, Chaitanya, Mirabai and Tulsidas. Her philosophical position matters equally. Her inward spirituality emerged from Kashmir Shaivism, not from a later religious synthesis. Her criticism of ritualism was a demand for genuine realisation. Her use of Kashmiri helped make sophisticated spiritual thought accessible beyond the traditional Sanskritic intellectual world. Her comparisons with later saints reveal meaningful parallels, but those parallels should not erase the differences between Shaivism, Nirguna Sant thought, Sikh teaching and the various Saguna devotional traditions.

The strongest historical claim is therefore also the most defensible one. Lal Ded was an important Shaivite precursor to the later northern Bhakti tradition. She did not begin the Bhakti movement. She helped articulate, at an early northern stage, a spiritual language of inwardness, direct experience, yogic discipline, vernacular expression and freedom from empty religious formalism.

Her place in the history of Bhakti is significant precisely because she remains unmistakably Lal Ded.

( Avtar Mota )

PS 

Lal Vaakh  painted above by artist Masood Hussain 

“Aessi aess tai aessi aassav

Aessi daur kaer pata-vath

Shivas sori na zyon ta marun

Ravas sori na ata-gath” ….Lal Ded

 Translation 

 (We have been in the past,

In future also we shall be.

Throughout the ages, we have been coming and going.

Forever the sun rises and sets.

Forever Shiva creates and dissolves and creates again.)

Commentary on the Vaakh by Avtar Mota

This Lal Vaakh of Lalleshwari, when viewed through the lens of Kashmir Shaivism and Tantra, expresses the profound insight that all existence is a cyclical manifestation of the one universal consciousness, Shiva. The repeated coming and going across ages reflects not merely rebirth, but the dynamic pulsation (Spanda) of reality itself, wherein Shiva continuously projects and withdraws the universe within His own being.

Lal Ded’s verse collapses linear time into the rhythm of consciousness. “We have been in the past, in future also we shall be” states not personal transmigration but the continuity of awareness itself. The sun’s rising and setting is offered as the natural image for Shiva’s eternal act of creation and dissolution. This aligns with Kashmir Shaivism, where the world is not made and then abandoned, but breathed. The Shiva Sutra declares “Spanda syat”; vibration is the nature of reality. The coming and going are therefore not accidents but the pulse of Spanda. Vedanta supports this with the distinction between the changing and the changeless witness. The Bhagavad Gita gives it ethical weight in Chapter 2 Verse 27, “Jatasya hi dhruvo mrityuh dhruvam janma mritasya cha”, for the born death is certain and for the dead birth is certain. Liberation is thus not escape from the cycle. It is recognition that one is the field in which the cycle occurs. Lal Ded removes fear by naming the process as divine and ordinary at once.

Commentary on the Painting of Masood Hussain by Avtar Mota 

Masood Hussain's canvas stages the same truth in pigment and structure. The left corner holds warmth and turbulence. Vermilion, ochre and gold build a womb-like hollow from which a red loop rises. The loop reads as both serpent and umbilical cord. It is Yonishakti, the circuit that gathers form and returns it. It admits no terminus. Above it, a Lingam marked with Tripundra sits in a red mandala, facing directly across the oval to the opposite corner. That placement positions Lal Ded in dialogue with Shiva, the text and the icon meeting across the field.

The right corner is cool and contemplative. Deep blues and turquoises form a mask with voided eyes and mouth, and stacked circles suggest chakras or planets. This is Shiva as witness. The Shiva Sutra notes “Shaktichakra sandhane vishva samharah”; through the conjunction of the wheel of energies, there is dissolution of the world. Vedanta reads the red form as Maya in motion and the blue as Brahman at rest. The Gita echoes this in Chapter 9 Verse 8, “Prakritim swam avashtabhya visrijami punah punah”. To place the Vaakh on the canvas would make the words a mantra within the image, so that reading becomes seeing, and the work functions as a visual Upanishad of creation and dissolution held in one frame.

(Avtar Mota )

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.

IS DISSOLUTION OF EGO FREEDOM?

                                                                                    

IS DISSOLUTION OF EGO FREEDOM?

The title poses a question rather than a conclusion. Is the dissolution of the ego itself freedom, or does it merely remove an obstacle to freedom? The distinction is fundamental. If the ego is understood simply as the individual's sense of personal identity, its complete disappearance would suggest the disappearance of the individual as a functioning human being. Yet the philosophical traditions considered here do not generally propose such annihilation. They ask whether the individual can cease to be inwardly governed by the limited conception of self that he habitually mistakes for his entire identity.

The more precise question is therefore this: what happens to freedom when the authority of the ego diminishes? Does consciousness become freer when attachment, possessiveness, fear, vanity and the demand for recognition lose their hold? Or does genuine freedom require the discovery of a reality beyond the individual ego? These are not identical propositions, and much of the philosophical richness of the question lies in keeping them distinct.

The Indian traditions approach the problem through different intellectual and spiritual languages. The Upaniṣads inquire into the nature of the Self. Śaṅkara examines the ignorance through which the non-Self is mistaken for the Self. The Śiva Sūtras begin from consciousness and explore how unlimited awareness appears as limited individuality and how that limitation can be recognised and overcome. The Bhagavad Gītā examines freedom through action without attachment, while the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha investigates the mind, desire and mental construction as sources of bondage. Swami Vivekananda brings the Vedāntic conception of freedom into modernity by presenting human existence as capable of manifesting an underlying divinity.

Greek philosophy approaches the question through another route. Socrates makes examination of oneself indispensable to a life worthy of a human being. Plato understands liberation as a turning of consciousness from appearance towards truth. Aristotle places human flourishing in rational activity and cultivated virtue. The Stoics locate freedom in the mastery of judgement and in the refusal to become inwardly dependent upon what lies beyond one's control.

Camus introduces a radically different possibility. He does not assume that the dissolution of the ordinary ego reveals an eternal Self. Confronting the absurd, he asks whether a person can remain lucid and free without metaphysical consolation. His answer belongs to existential rather than Vedāntic philosophy.

The title therefore opens a philosophical encounter between different conceptions of liberation. For some traditions, freedom is inseparable from discovering what the Self truly is. For others, it consists in transforming the relation between the individual and the conditions of existence. The question is not whether these positions can be made identical. They cannot. The value lies in seeing precisely where they converge and where they separate.

The Upaniṣadic Question

The Upaniṣads place the problem of identity at the centre of philosophical inquiry. Their concern is not merely with the personality that says I, but with the deeper principle by which experience is possible. The individual normally identifies himself with the body, senses, emotions, memory, social position and mental activity. The Upaniṣadic inquiry asks whether any of these can constitute the ultimate Self.

The celebrated declaration “Tat tvam asi”, That thou art, directs attention beyond ordinary individuality towards a deeper identity between the Self and ultimate reality. Similarly, “Aham Brahmāsmi”, I am Brahman, does not represent the glorification of the personal ego. It reverses the ordinary meaning of I. The statement does not mean that the individual personality has become omnipotent. It means that the deepest Self cannot be reduced to the finite personality through which it is expressed. This distinction already alters the meaning of ego dissolution. The problem is not the existence of individuality but the mistaken belief that individuality is the whole of the Self. Freedom begins when this confusion is questioned.

Śaṅkara and the Dissolution of Misidentification

Ādi Śaṅkara develops this insight through Advaita Vedānta. For him, bondage arises from ignorance, avidyā, particularly from the superimposition of what is not the Self upon the Self. The body, mind, senses and personality belong to empirical existence. They have a practical reality, but they are not the ultimate Self.

The ego therefore has a peculiar status. It is indispensable for ordinary life. One must distinguish oneself from another person, perform actions, remember one's name and fulfil responsibilities. Śaṅkara is not advocating the destruction of this empirical personality. What must disappear is the error by which the empirical ego is taken to be the ultimate identity.

Freedom is consequently knowledge rather than psychological obliteration. When the distinction between the Self and the non Self becomes clear, the individual no longer attributes ultimate reality to the changing personality. Liberation follows from this knowledge. In this sense, dissolution of ego is better understood as dissolution of misidentification. What disappears is not necessarily the functioning person, but the claim that the functioning person exhausts the meaning of the Self.

The Śiva Sūtras and the Freedom of Consciousness

The Śiva Sūtras begin with the striking aphorism, “Caitanyam ātmā”, consciousness is the Self. The starting point is therefore not an isolated individual consciousness but consciousness itself. In Kashmir Śaivism, the apparent limitation of the individual is understood in relation to the universal consciousness of Śiva.

The ordinary ego experiences itself as a restricted I. It says, in effect, I am this body, this mind, this history and this particular collection of desires. The Śiva Sūtras challenge that limitation at its foundation. The restricted individual is not separate from consciousness; rather, consciousness has become experienced in a contracted form.

This gives the question of freedom a distinctive character. Liberation is not simply escape from the world. It is recognition, pratyabhijñā, of one's deeper identity with the consciousness that constitutes reality. The concept of svātantrya, the intrinsic freedom or autonomy of consciousness, is especially important. Consciousness is fundamentally free, although that freedom becomes obscured through limitation and identification. Here the dissolution of ego does not mean the destruction of individuality. The individual continues to perceive, act, create and participate in the world. What changes is the centre from which experience is understood. The limited ego ceases to be regarded as the final authority. This is an important distinction from a simplistic idea of egolessness. Kashmir Śaivism does not necessarily ask the individual to become nothing. It asks the individual to recognise more fully what consciousness is. Freedom is therefore a recovery of identity rather than mere disappearance.

 

The Bhagavad Gītā and Freedom in Action

The Bhagavad Gītā introduces another dimension. Its central problem is not withdrawal from action but how action can be performed without bondage. Arjuna is placed in a situation in which action is unavoidable. The question is how one can act without becoming psychologically enslaved by the fruits and consequences of action.The famous teaching, “Karmaṇy evādhikāras te mā phaleṣu kadācana”, is commonly rendered as: you have a right to action, but not to the fruits of action. The teaching does not advocate indifference. It separates responsible action from possessive attachment to its outcome. This is crucial to the question of ego. The ego continually seeks confirmation through achievement, recognition, victory and possession. It says not merely I act, but I must succeed, I must be recognised, I must possess the result. The Gītā challenges precisely this appropriation.

Freedom therefore becomes possible within action itself. One does not have to cease functioning in the world. One must cease allowing attachment to the fruits of action to determine one's inner condition. The Gītā consequently contributes a practical dimension to the philosophical question. Freedom is not only something discovered in contemplation. It is tested in conduct.

The Yoga Vāsiṣṭha and the Construction of Bondage

The Yoga Vāsiṣṭha approaches the problem through an extraordinarily subtle examination of mind. Bondage is closely connected with desire, memory, imagination and vāsanā, the latent tendencies that shape perception and behaviour. The world experienced by the individual is not simply an objective reality presented to an entirely passive mind. Consciousness interprets, constructs and invests experience with meaning. The ego survives through these constructions. It carries memories forward, projects desires into the future and continually reconstructs an identity out of past experience. The person then becomes attached to the very narrative that the mind has constructed.

The Yoga Vāsiṣṭha therefore places considerable emphasis upon mental freedom. A jīvanmukta, one liberated while still living, does not necessarily abandon ordinary activity. The liberated person may continue to act in the world while remaining inwardly free from the compulsions that previously governed the mind. This makes the distinction particularly clear. Freedom does not necessarily require the disappearance of personality. It requires the transformation of the relationship between consciousness and the processes through which personality is constructed.

Socrates and the Examination of the Self

Greek philosophy approaches the question from a different intellectual background. Socrates does not teach the Upaniṣadic identity of Ātman and Brahman, nor does he formulate liberation in the language of recognition of Śiva consciousness. Yet his insistence upon self-examination establishes a remarkable parallel.

The Socratic demand is that human beings should not live blindly according to inherited opinions, social conventions or unexamined desires. The examined life is one in which the individual subjects his own assumptions to rational scrutiny. The significance for the question of ego is profound. The ego ordinarily presents its own beliefs as self-evident. Socrates turns the questioning mind back upon itself. The person who asks questions about the world must also ask who is doing the questioning and upon what assumptions his identity and judgements rest. Yet Socrates remains fundamentally different from the non-dual traditions. His method is ethical and philosophical rather than an exposition of the metaphysics of universal consciousness. The resemblance lies in the demand to become free from unexamined identification.

Plato and the Transformation of Vision

Plato develops this concern through the distinction between appearance and reality. The allegory of the cave presents human beings as prisoners of appearances who mistake shadows for reality. Liberation involves a turning of the soul towards what is more real. The metaphor is important because freedom here is not primarily the removal of an external chain. It is a transformation of vision. The prisoner must undergo an inward reorientation before he can perceive reality differently. There is therefore an affinity with Indian philosophical thought, but not an identity. The Upaniṣads speak of ignorance and knowledge; Plato speaks of appearance and intelligible reality. Both recognise that ordinary consciousness may mistake its conditioned field of experience for the whole of reality. Their metaphysical conclusions, however, belong to different traditions.

Aristotle and the Disciplined Self

Aristotle places greater emphasis on the actual conduct of human life. His conception of eudaimonia, human flourishing, is inseparable from rational activity and virtue. Freedom is not achieved simply by abandoning desire. Desire must be educated and brought into an appropriate relation with reason. This provides a useful corrective to the idea that freedom means the absence of all personality or individuality. Aristotle assumes that the good human life requires the cultivation of character. The task is not to erase the person but to form the person properly. From this perspective, the ego becomes problematic when it is ruled by irrational desire, excess or vanity. A disciplined personality can be an instrument of flourishing rather than an obstacle to it.

Stoicism and Inner Sovereignty

The Stoics move still closer to the question of inner freedom. Their central insight is that human beings cannot control everything that happens to them, but they can cultivate control over their judgements and responses. Epictetus famously distinguishes what lies within our power from what does not. External circumstances, reputation, wealth, illness and the actions of other people cannot be completely controlled. Judgement and response belong more directly to the sphere of human agency. The Stoic therefore seeks freedom by withdrawing inner dependence upon external conditions. This is not dissolution of the ego in the Indian sense. It is the disciplined sovereignty of reason.

Nevertheless, the comparison is illuminating. Both Stoicism and the Indian traditions recognise that bondage is intensified when consciousness becomes dependent upon forces it cannot govern. They differ profoundly concerning the metaphysical ground of freedom.

Vivekananda and Freedom as the Nature of the Self

Swami Vivekananda brings the Vedāntic conception of freedom into the modern world with unusual force. His thought is rooted primarily in Advaita Vedānta and the wider Upaniṣadic and yogic tradition, although his presentation speaks directly to the intellectual concerns of modern humanity. His well-known formulation, “Each soul is potentially divine”, expresses a conception of human possibility radically different from the idea that the individual is fundamentally weak, sinful or permanently imprisoned within a finite identity. The deepest human potential is spiritual. For Vivekananda, however, this does not mean the enlargement of personal ego. The statement concerns the deeper Self, not the personality demanding admiration or power. The task is to manifest the divinity already present rather than to inflate the empirical ego.

His teaching of Karma Yoga is particularly relevant here. Action becomes a means of freedom when performed without selfish attachment. Service, discipline, knowledge, meditation and devotion can become different paths towards the same realisation. Vivekananda therefore forms an important bridge between classical Indian thought and the modern world. His conception of freedom shares with the Śiva Sūtras an emphasis upon an underlying spiritual reality, while his language often remains closer to Vedānta. His approach also differs from Camus in a fundamental respect. Vivekananda sees freedom as rooted in the deeper nature of the Self, whereas Camus refuses to solve the human predicament through metaphysical assurance.

Nietzsche and the Problem of the Constructed Self

Nietzsche complicates the Western discussion by questioning the stability of the unified self. What people call identity may contain competing drives, interpretations and forces. The self is not necessarily the transparent sovereign that it imagines itself to be. Nietzsche's concern is not liberation through recognition of an eternal Self. Indeed, his thought resists precisely such metaphysical conclusions. His project concerns self-overcoming, the revaluation of inherited values and the creation of forms of life capable of affirming existence. The comparison with Indian thought must therefore remain cautious. Nietzsche does not advocate the dissolution of ego in the Vedāntic or Śaiva sense. Yet he exposes the constructed character of many identities and values that human beings treat as natural and permanent.

Camus and Freedom Without Metaphysical Assurance

Albert Camus takes the question into a distinctly modern territory. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the fundamental problem is the absurd confrontation between the human demand for meaning and a universe that does not provide an ultimate answer. Camus does not respond by discovering an eternal Self behind the ego. Nor does he resolve the absurd by appealing to transcendence. His philosophical project begins with lucidity. The individual must look directly at the human condition without escaping into comforting illusions. Freedom therefore emerges through consciousness of one's situation. Once the demand for an externally guaranteed meaning is relinquished, the individual can confront existence more honestly. Camus associates this stance with revolt, freedom and passionate engagement with life. This marks one of the sharpest differences between Camus and the Indian traditions discussed above. In Advaita and Kashmir Śaivism, the limitations of ordinary identity can be transcended because a deeper reality is recognised. Camus does not make that move. He remains within the tension of human existence. Yet the comparison is philosophically fruitful. Both approaches question automatic identification with inherited assumptions. Both value lucidity. Both resist passive submission to forces that claim absolute authority. Their difference concerns what follows from that awakening. Indian non-dual traditions point towards a deeper Self or consciousness. Camus remains committed to freedom within an existence that offers no such metaphysical guarantee.

Dissolution Is Not Annihilation

The central distinction can now be stated more precisely. Dissolution of ego should not be confused with destruction of individuality. A functioning human being requires memory, agency, judgement, responsibility and a practical sense of identity. What philosophical traditions challenge is the transformation of this practical identity into an absolute one. The ego becomes a source of bondage when the limited I claims final authority over consciousness. It wants possession, recognition, certainty and control. It interprets experience through the demands of its own continuity. When these demands cease to dominate, another quality of freedom can emerge.

For Śaṅkara, the decisive movement is knowledge of the Self. For Kashmir Śaivism, it is recognition of consciousness and its intrinsic freedom. For the Gītā, it is action without attachment. For the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha, it is freedom from mental constructions and latent tendencies. For Vivekananda, it is the manifestation of the divine potential within. For the Stoics, it is mastery of judgement. For Camus, it is lucid existence without appeal to metaphysical consolation. These are not interchangeable doctrines. Their differences matter. Yet all refuse to identify freedom simply with the satisfaction of the ordinary ego.

Two Philosophical Destinations

The deepest divide appears when we ask what freedom reveals once ordinary identification has been weakened. The Upaniṣadic and Vedāntic traditions answer that the seeker discovers a deeper identity. The ego is limited because it mistakes the changing for the eternal. Freedom comes through knowledge of what one truly is.

Kashmir Śaivism gives this insight a distinctive form. The individual does not merely discover something outside himself. Consciousness recognises itself as the reality that has been present throughout experience. The language is therefore one of recognition and expansion rather than simple negation.

The Gītā and Yoga Vāsiṣṭha make the question more practical. One may continue to act, think and participate in the world while no longer being inwardly enslaved by attachment and mental conditioning.

The Greek traditions, with their different metaphysical commitments, focus upon examination, education, virtue and rational self-mastery. Camus takes the most radical modern position by refusing to promise that the removal of illusion will reveal an ultimate metaphysical truth.

The contrast is therefore not simply between East and West. There are differences within both. Plato is not Aristotle. Stoicism is not Camus. Śaṅkara is not Kashmir Śaivism. The Gītā is not the Yoga Vāsiṣṭha. Vivekananda is not merely a repetition of any one of them. What brings them together is not doctrinal agreement but a shared philosophical concern with the conditions under which a human being becomes inwardly free.

What Freedom Finally Means

The question posed by the title cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. Dissolution of ego is not, by itself, a sufficient definition of freedom. It can mean the removal of misidentification, the weakening of attachment, the cessation of compulsive self-assertion, the mastery of mental conditioning or the recognition of a deeper dimension of consciousness. Its precise meaning depends upon the philosophical tradition in which it is placed.

The more profound question is whether the human being can cease to be imprisoned by the narrow conception of self that habitually governs perception and action. If that limitation is removed, something changes even when the individual personality remains.

Socrates begins with examination. Plato with the transformation of vision. Aristotle with the cultivation of virtue. The Stoics with inner sovereignty. The Upaniṣads with knowledge of the Self. Śaṅkara with discrimination between the Self and the non-Self. The Śiva Sūtras with recognition of consciousness as the Self. The Gītā with action without attachment. The Yoga Vāsiṣṭha with freedom from the constructions of mind. Vivekananda with the manifestation of the divine potential. Camus with lucidity and revolt in the face of the absurd.

Their answers cannot be reduced to one another. Yet their encounter makes the original question more rather than less significant. Perhaps freedom begins when the ego ceases to be the unquestioned measure of reality. Whether what follows is the recognition of Ātman, the expansion of consciousness, disciplined self-mastery, virtuous flourishing or lucid revolt remains the great philosophical divide. The enduring issue is therefore not whether the ego must simply disappear. It is whether human consciousness can become sufficiently free to examine the identity it has constructed, the desires by which it is governed and the assumptions through which it interprets existence. That is where the philosophical traditions meet most fruitfully. They do not provide one answer to the question of freedom. They compel us to ask what, precisely, is the self that seeks to be free.

( Avtar Mota )

 

 

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.

RESERVES, REMITTANCES AND RESILIENCE : INDIA 'S EXTERNAL STORY

                                            

India's External Resilience: The Convergence of Record Foreign Exchange Reserves and Sustained Remittance Inflows

India's external sector is currently exhibiting a structural strength that is without precedent in its post-independence economic history. The combination of foreign exchange reserves hovering near the three-quarter trillion dollar mark and overseas remittances consistently exceeding $135 billion per annum has fundamentally altered the nature of India's balance of payments. What was once a source of vulnerability has become a strategic asset.

Foreign Exchange Reserves: Scale and Composition

As per the Reserve Bank of India's Weekly Statistical Supplement for the week ended 25th September 2026, India's foreign exchange reserves stand at $747.55 billion. This follows an all-time high of $785.70 billion recorded in the first week of September 2026, which was augmented by a special concessional swap window that enabled banks to mobilise over $130 billion from Non-Resident Indian deposits.

The composition is robust:

 Foreign Currency Assets: $615.4 billion

Gold: $108.7 billion, reflecting a deliberate diversification policy by the RBI over the last five years

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs): $18.6 billion

Reserve Position in the IMF: $4.8 billion

The reserves provide import cover of approximately 11 months and comfortably exceed all external debt due within one year, satisfying the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. This is a marked departure from 1991 and 2013, when reserves were barely sufficient to cover three months of imports.

Overseas Remittances: The Permanent Inflow

India has retained its position as the world's largest recipient of remittances for over a decade. The data for the last two fiscal years indicates an acceleration rather than a plateau.

In FY25, private transfers, predominantly workers' remittances, reached a record $135.46 billion, a growth of 14% year-on-year.

For FY26, the Government informed Parliament that net private transfers had risen to $144.8 billion.

 In Q4 of FY26, inflows were $31.07 billion, the highest quarterly figure in thirteen years.

Two structural shifts underpin this growth. First, the share of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries has declined from over 50% a decade ago to under 38% today, while the share of advanced economies - the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia - has risen to over 35%. Second, the inflow is counter-cyclical; the West Asian crisis of 2024-25 led to a precautionary increase in transfers rather than a decline.

Link to National GDP

Remittances have a direct and positive link to national GDP. As per the Economic Survey 2025-26, remittances accounted for 3.5% of GDP in FY25 and 3.4% in FY26. With India's nominal GDP at $3.92 trillion in FY26 as per the IMF, this represents approximately Rs 11.5 lakh crore of additional disposable income.

Remittances are not counted in GDP itself, as GDP measures production within the geographical boundaries of India. They are recorded as secondary income in the balance of payments and form part of Gross National Disposable Income (GNDI). In simple terms, India produced $3.92 trillion, but its households had $4.06 trillion to actually spend because of remittances.

Is it good for GDP? Yes, for three reasons. First, it finances 47.5% of India's $284 billion merchandise trade deficit, keeping the current account deficit below 1% of GDP and allowing the Reserve Bank to maintain exchange rate stability, which is essential for GDP growth. Second, it is liability-free foreign exchange, unlike external commercial borrowings or portfolio flows that create future debt obligations. Third, it flows directly to over 150 million households, particularly in Kerala, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, where it fuels rural consumption, housing construction, education and small business investment - all components of GDP. Without remittances, domestic consumption would be lower by nearly 3 percentage points, and GDP growth would be weaker.

The Macroeconomic Inference

Firstly, India's reserve accretion is increasingly non-debt creating. Remittances are unrequited transfers without a corresponding liability, making the $747 billion reserve far more durable.

Secondly, remittances are now the principal financing mechanism for India's merchandise trade deficit. Net invisible receipts - software exports of ∼$160 billion and private remittances of $135 billion - total nearly $295 billion, almost entirely offsetting the merchandise deficit.

Thirdly, the external account has become democratised. Foreign exchange is no longer confined to corporate exporters or institutional investors. It creates a direct transmission from external strength to domestic demand.

Conclusion

The balance of $747 billion in reserves and $135-145 billion in annual remittances signifies a transition. India is moving from a position where it managed external fragility to one where it deploys external strength. If the current 12-14% compound annual growth in remittances is sustained, India is projected to receive over $200 billion by 2028-29, and reserves are likely to surpass the $1 trillion mark without a commensurate increase in external debt.

(Avtar Mota)

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.

A DOHA OF KABIR AND DOCTRINE OF KARMA

                                  

                           ( Image by using AI )

A DOHA OF KABIR AND DOCTRINE OF KARMA 

"Kabira teri jhonpri galkatiyan ke paas,

Karni sab ne bharni hai, tu kyon bhayo udaas"..Kabir

(Kabir, your humble hut is 

situated next to the slaughterhouse lane.

 Every being must bear 

the fruit of its own deed. 

Why then have you become sad?)

"Jhonpri is this perishable body, a thatched hut. _Galkatiyan_ is the lane where throats are cut, the butcher's quarter. The image is that the saint lives in the midst of everyday violence. His heart, being compassionate, sinks.

Kabir corrects himself with Vedanta.

Full Interpretation in the Light of Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads 

 Gita - The Law of Karni or Karma 

Karni sab ne bharni hai is the most direct folk translation of the Gita's Doctrine of Karma.

In Gita Chapter 4, Krishna says , "Gahana karmano gatih"  or profound is the working of action. No Karma is ever lost. In Chapter 3, He says, "Karmana badhyate jantuh" or  the jiva is bound by its own Karma.

The butcher or  the galkatiyan is performing his Karma.  Gita Chapter 18, Verse 25 defines it: ,"Anubandham kshayam himsam anapekshya cha paurusham, mohad arabhyate karma yat tat tamasam uchyate" or  that action which is begun out of delusion, without regard to consequence, loss or injury to others, is Tamasic. Such action inevitably creates its own fruit. The butcher will bear it. The eater will bear his. This is not a curse, it is a law like gravity. Sri Krishna says in Chapter 9, ,"Aham hi sarva yajnanam bhokta cha prabhur eva cha" or  I am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices, meaning I am the dispenser of the fruits of Karma.

Therefore, Kabir says, why intervene mentally? You are not the dispenser. You are a witness. The law is automatic. The moment you take over the role of judge, you create new Karma for yourself ;  karma of hatred, of anger, of depression.

This is what  Sri Krishna warns Arjuna about in Chapter 2, Verse 62-63. From brooding on objects comes attachment, from attachment anger, from anger delusion, from delusion loss of memory and destruction of intelligence.

Upanishads - Why Be Sad?

"Tu kyon bhayo udaas"  is the central question of the Upanishads.

Why does the sage become sad living next to the butcher? Because of  Dvaita-buddhi, the intellect of duality. He thinks ,"I am pure, the butcher is impure. I am compassionate, he is cruel. This duality itself is the cause of  "Shoka".

The Katha Upanishad (1.2.20) says: "Anor aniyan mahato mahiyan, atmasya jantor nihito guhayam, tam akratuh pashyati vita shoko" or the Self, smaller than the small and greater than the great, is seated in the heart of every creature. He who is free from desire sees it and becomes free from sorrow.

The Isha Upanishad says ,"Yasmin sarvani bhutani atmaiva bhud vijanatah, tatra ko mohah kah shokah ekatvam anupashyatah" or  when a man sees all beings in his own Self, and his Self in all beings, what delusion and what sorrow can there be for him who sees oneness?

Kabir's sadness was because he was seeing only the bodies ; the butcher's body and the animal's body. The Upanishad says see the Atman. The Atman in the butcher is also Brahman, but covered by Avidya and  Tamas. Your sorrow will not remove that covering. Only his own knowledge can.

So the instruction is ," do not drown in  "Karuna"  that becomes "Vishada" . Let compassion remain as detached witness.

Guard Your Own Hut - The Practical Vedanta:

Your hut is next to the Galkatiyan. This is the most realistic description of human life given by the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad ,"Anitya and  Mrityu surround us. Death is the ultimate butcher, sitting next to every hut.

Given this, what should you do? The Upanishads and Gita give the same answer: "Atmameva atmanam uddhara" or lift yourself by yourself (Gita 6.5).

You cannot close the world's slaughterhouses. You can ensure no slaughter of truth, compassion and purity happens inside your own hut. Your  Karni is your responsibility. Don't make it Tamsic  . Don't perform Karma with violence and  with attachment  . As the Shvetashvatara Upanishad says, the swan lives in water but does not get wet. So live next to the Galkatiyan , but keep your hut clean with  Nama Japa  as Kabir did.

 The butcher bears his Karni. You bear yours. Why be sad? 

( Avtar Mota )

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.

IMPERFECT LABELLING OF ART OBJECTS BY SPS MUSEUM ,SRINAGAR

                                      

Two Museums, Two Ways of Seeing: Why Kashmir Must Learn to Label Its Own  Heritage 

A museum label is not a price tag. It is the voice of the object. When that voice is weak, even the greatest masterpiece becomes mute. Two photographs before me illustrate this contrast with painful clarity and they raise a fundamental question for all lovers of Kashmiri heritage.Both have been photographed by me.

Chicago Museum Labelling: Perfect, Descriptive and Scholarly

The first photograph shows a standing Bodhisattva sculpture displayed in a museum in Chicago. The sculpture dates to the second to third century from the Gandhara region. The label beside it is a model of professional curatorial scholarship. It does not merely name the object. It teaches.

It states that the sculpture and other early depictions of Bodhisattvas represent enlightened beings who have chosen to remain in the world to help humanity and therefore wear princely attire. Such finery can also be seen on portrayals of the historical Buddha when he was Prince Siddhartha, before he embarked on his spiritual journey and discarded luxurious trappings. It notes that the figure is adorned with a romantic complex in ancient Gandhara, a crossroads of global trade routes. It draws attention to the muscular build, the strong facial features and the carefully draped dress that shows the impact of Greco Roman art from the time of Alexander the Great, while the long earrings suggest influence from the nomadic Indo Scythian peoples known as the Saka.

In about one hundred words, the viewer learns the what, the when, the where, the how and the why. The material, the iconography, the style, the historical context and the cross cultural influence are all explained by a professional who knows art history. This is what scientific cataloguing means. It respects both the object and the visitor.

Kashmir Museum Labelling: Casual, Imperfect and Sketchy

The second example is from our own Shri Pratap Singh Museum, Srinagar, in its new building at Lal Mandi.

The object is a magnificent stone sculpture of Shiva, retrieved from Gupkar in Srinagar, dated to the ninth century. Its label reads only, "Shiva, Ninth Century CE, Stone, Gupkar Srinagar, Kashmir, Acc No 2496" .

This is casual, imperfect and sketchy work. It is not cataloguing at all. To write only Shiva means nothing in Indian art history.

Shiva has countless iconographic manifestations. He is worshipped and represented as Mahadeva, as Trimurti, as Panchamukhi, as Harihara, as Ardhanarishvara, as Linga, as Bhairava, as Nataraja. Each form has a distinct philosophy, a distinct set of Lakshanas prescribed in the Agamas and Vishnudharmottara Purana, and a distinct stylistic evolution. A single generic name erases all that knowledge.

The Gupkar Shiva: What the Label Should Have Said

A careful look at the Gupkar sculpture shows that it is not an ordinary Shiva. It is Shiva as Mahadeva in his Trimurti aspect, a form that is the very heart of Kashmir Shaivism.

The sculpture shows three faces carved with superb skill. The central face is Tatpurusha, serene, meditative and yogic, with a tall "Jata-mukuta "and a calm expression. The face on the deity's right is Aghora or Bhairava, fierce in expression with a powerful gaze, representing the destructive and protective energy. The fierceness is shown through the modelling of the eyes and brows and the open mouth. The face on the deity's left is Vamadeva or Uma, gentle and feminine, with soft features and graceful ornamentation, representing Shakti as Parvati. The topmost face, Ishana, which would have made it a full Panchamukhi, is now lost, as is common in many surviving examples.

Thus in one image, the sculptor of ninth century Kashmir, during the glorious period of the Utpala dynasty, has united in one form the creator, the destroyer and the feminine principle. It is Mahadeva containing within himself Bhairava and Uma. It is philosophy in stone, the core of the Trika system for which Kashmir was the greatest centre in the world.

A professional label written by an art historian and a scholar of Shaiva iconography would have explained all this. It would have specified the material as chloritic schist, the style as mature Kashmiri under the Utpalas, the iconographic text as referring to Shaiva Agamas, the provenance as the Gupkar find spot, and the comparative examples from other collections.

Conclusion: If Not in Kashmir, Then Where

The Bodhisattva in the Chicago photograph belongs to Gandhara. The American museum has explained it with full scholarship, even though it is not their own cultural heritage.

The Shiva as Mahadeva belongs to Kashmir. It is our own God, our own philosophy, our own art, carved by Kashmiri hands on Kashmiri stone. If this profound form is not elaborated, interpreted and celebrated in the SPS Museum of Kashmir itself, where else will it be?

The Chicago museum teaches us how to honour another culture's heritage. The SPS Museum is today failing to honour its own.

This is therefore a humble appeal to the Department of Archives, Archaeology and Museums, Jammu and Kashmir. Please get the entire collection professionally re catalogued. Engage scholars of Kashmiri art, of Buddhist and Shaiva iconography, of Sanskrit and Persian manuscripts, from the University of Kashmir, University of Jammu and Central University of Kashmir. Let each object speak with the knowledge it deserves.

Our heritage does not need mere storage. It needs storytelling. And that storytelling must begin at home.

( Avtar Mota )

PS

Both photos by Avtar mota

CHINAR SHADE by Autarmota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License.
Based on a work at http:\\autarmota.blogspot.com\.