“Eclipse of the Hindu Nation” – Excerpt from ‘Introduction’
Dear All: Over the next few weeks, I will be publishing excerpts from a new book by Dr Radha Rajan titled, “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation“.
The first excerpt from the Introduction, below:
*** Excerpt from “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation” – Introduction ***
Historically, the sense of nation and nationhood among Hindus has been cultural and civilisational. The culture and its unique value system, founded in an extraordinary concept of dharma, touched every aspect of individual and collective life. Politics, a means to protect and preserve dharma, was subordinate to dharma. Historically, until Hindus faced successive Islamic and Christian conquests, they had no sense of civilisational, adversarial political-cultural purposes. However, confronted with the hostility of Islam and Christianity, a heightened Hindu nationalism manifested itself over the last 1200 years as organized resistance and as individual acts of extreme courage to protect Hindus and the Hindu way of life. Rana Pratap Singh, Rani Laxmibhai of Jhansi, Chatrapati Shivaji, Guru Gobind Singh, the Gosamrakshana Samitis, Sri Aurobindo, Veer Savarkar, Madanlal Dhingra and the host of revolutionaries who followed each other into the twentieth century, are but a few examples of this continuing resistance. These individual and group resistance movements ignited the fire of Hindu nationalism and gave to this nation of Hindus a political consciousness which sought to bring Indian polity in line with the Hindu ethos, to wean it away from the acutely inimical anti-Hindu path it is even now traversing.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi[1] and later Jawaharlal Nehru successfully stifled the march of Hindu nationalism. Nehru viewed a politically vibrant Hindu nationalism as a threat to his preeminence and invoked the might of state patronage to promote an academic discourse and an ‘authorized’ history that relegated Hindu civilization to the margins of national consciousness.[2]
Writers of modified history[3] perpetuated the colonial fiction that India was always pluralist, never Hindu, the implication being that Hindus cannot claim this land as their special janmabhumi, and cannot legitimately undertake steps to protect their territory, their way of life, or their cultural sensibilities. Public expression of support for the Hindu way of life was termed backward, superstitious, majoritarian communalism and retrogressive vis-à -vis superior virtues like ‘scientific temper’, secularism and pluralism, which India unquestioningly adopted via Gandhi and Nehru from their White-Christian-British masters. Hindus were insidiously conditioned to equate Hindu political intentions with jihad. So intolerant was Indian political discourse to Hindu nationalism that even eminent Hindu political leaders took to mouthing inanities, like ‘Hindu nationalism is only cultural nationalism’. That this misconceived articulation amounted to a denial of territorial content and political intent in Hindu nationalism was either overlooked or ignored or simply not understood at all.
The present work is an attempt to balance India’s distorted public discourse by outlining the contours and content of Hindu nationalism. This is a responsibility and an imperative that can no longer be evaded. The anti-Hindu polity today constitutes the greatest threat to Hindus and the Hindu nation. This work seeks to delineate the parameters of Hindu nationalism and fire it with strategic intent. In the process the book critically examines the freedom movement between the years 1890-1947, particularly the events that launched Gandhi to the commanding heights of the movement. Gandhi did not rise naturally to demonstrated leadership potential; rather, this exalted position was reserved for him and he simply walked to the pinnacle immediately after his return to India from South Africa.
Gandhi’s leadership of the Indian National Congress and the freedom movement sounded the death-knell for Hindu nationalism, as we hope to demonstrate; and after Gandhi and Nehru (who inherited Gandhi’s political mantle) hand-picked all Congress members to the Constituent Assembly, the Hindus of the nation were presented with a Constitution that did not reflect the nation’s timeless civilisational ethos or heritage nor represent the interests of the nation’s majority Hindu populace. The beginning of the post-independence era in the nation’s history was the beginning of an active anti-Hindu polity that continues to hold sway till the present. This book seeks to correct the anti-Hindu political discourse which owes its existence to Gandhi and Nehru; this book signals the beginning of the collective effort of political-minded Hindus to set down the coffins of Gandhi and Nehru from the unwilling shoulders of the Hindu nation.
*** End of Excerpt ***
Footnotes:
[1] As standard academic practice, we are using names without suffixes such as Mahatma or Gandhiji.
[2] The dubious motives behind international awards for those that propagate a non-Hindu India is exemplified by the American Kluge prize awarded jointly to Romilla Thapar. “Ms. Thapar created a new and more pluralistic view of Indian civilization, which had seemed more unitary and unchanging by scrutinising its evolution over two millennia and searching out its historical consciousnessâ€, the Library of Congress said. (Deccan Chronicle, Chennai edition, page 8, 5th December, 2008)
[3] Historians such as R.S. Sharma, D.N. Jha and Romila Thapar exemplify this school of writing.
***
The book was launched in New Delhi on 26th June by Dr Subhash Kashyap and Dr Lokesh Chandra. It may be ordered directly from the publishers by email at ncbadel@ncbapvtltd.com or over the phone at 011-2649 3326, – 27 and -28(Attn: Rima Kar Ghosh).
ISBN 81- 7819 – 068- 0
Publishers – New Age Publishers (P) Ltd (NAPL)
Thanks Shantanu, looking forward to read more.
“Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi[1] and later Jawaharlal Nehru successfully stifled the march of Hindu nationalism.”
Should read as, “Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, as wrongly explained to Indians…”
Nice one. I heard about the book recently. I always wonder what is Indira Gandhi’s take on this radical left-wing scholarship!!! She is probably too pre-occupied with her own political survival.
Shantanu,
I find such books long on assertions and opinion and short on scholarship, research and analysis. This lends itself to attack leading to serious discrediting of the work. I will take just three examples from the extract above:
i) Politics was subordinate to Dharma: can some examples and data be provided in support of this assertion? How does one reconcile the real politik of Arthashastra with dharma?
ii)Rana Pratap, Rani Laxmibai and Shivaji are upheld as examples of Hindu nationalism because (a) they were Hindus and (b) they fought the Mughals and the British. Is there any research to indicate they fought to protect “Hindu nationhood” (it is unclear that the notion of Hindu nationhood was alive at the time of say, Rana Pratap) or because of dharma? How does one respond to the claim that say, Rana Pratap was just a local ruler fighting to protect his land as opposed to fighting with a grand vision of uniting Hindus/fighting for Hindu nationhood?
iii)Going by the first footnote, Shivaji ought not to be prefaced by Chhatrapati:).
The tragedy with such works is that the bias is evident right from the very beginning. Without adequate rigour and scholarship as evidenced in the development of the thesis, such works can be easily dismissed as jingoistic nationalism. These works therefore appeal to the already “converted” rather than to those sympathetic and those who’re open to an alternative narrative. As Elst has argued eloquently in his book “Decolonising the Hindu Mind”, intellectual bankruptcy is the bane of the Hindutva movement. Am afraid such works only lend credence to that conclusion.
Sanjay: Excellent points…especially around the idea of “Hindu nationhood”…I am reasonably sure that this was indeed the case as far as Shivaji is concerned…I do not have enough knowledge to comment on Rana Pratap (or Rani Laxmibai).
As you must have guessed by now, I have not (yet) read the book…Hopefully there is more stuff/evidence/data in the footnotes.
Re. point 1] I recall reading something about this…let me see if I can dig it up.
More later.
@ Sanjay: Re. “How does one reconcile the real politik of Arthashastra with dharma?”
You may have read this sutra from Kautilya: Sukhasya mUlam Dharma which is a good starting point to assert that Arthashastra’s realpolitik was grounded in (or aimed at) preserving and strengthening Dharma.
Separately picked this up from Offstumped’s Twitter Feed:
Where Machiavelli has no moral compass, Kautilya never loses sight of Dharma requiring State’s Ministers to ensure King never strays from it
More on this later.
Shantanu,
Going by the blurb the book looks like an ad for the “Indian way of life”. These words might be yet unused, but we have already heard its counterparts, the American way of life or the Australian way of life. And since the right does not have a very extensive list of freedom fighters, it is quite convenient to insert “Hindu fighting the Mlecchas” in the list of attributes of people whom we are not very sure were driven by the sentiments we attribute to them. I am not very sure that Rani Lakshmibai ever said “Meri Hindu Jhansi”. (She had also fought with neighbouring(non-British)kingdoms, if I remember correctly). I also wonder what the Muslims fighting alongside Rana Pratap and Shivaji thought they were doing.
BTW, I am really relieved to know that Veer was Savarkar’s first name. I was slightly worried that it might be a suffix.
@Sanjay,
You might have heard the phrase by His excellency Shivaji Maharaj.
“हे हिंदवी सà¥à¤µà¤°à¤¾à¤œà¥à¤¯ वà¥à¤¹à¤¾à¤µà¥‡ ही तो शà¥à¤°à¥€à¤‚ची इचà¥à¤›à¤¾.”
(This should become a Hindu Nation, its the will of God )
-[Shiv Bharat Mahakavya]
This clearly indicates that Shivaji Mahraj had vision of Hindu Nationalism and spent his stay on earth for this only cause of protective his people from invaders and promoting the idea of Hindu Nation. Which was further fought by Bjairao Peshave and established a Hindu Rule at Delhi.
So it is better to look at the facts.
Jai Hind!
I see such books as this fulfilling the need of Hindus who have strived for an identity not met by the contemporary establishment which is all very mushy with multi-culturalism and plauralism. Do not get me wrong, multiculturalism and plauralism have very parts to play in modern life. I just believe that leaders such as Nehru and Gandhi got them whooly wrong. Neither am I convinced that the Hindu right (a term which is less whooly appropriate to describe them) have got the balance right. Any attempt therefore is better than none at all.
There is no doubting that a powerful and vibrant civilisation existed in Bharat which narrates the polity established by an essentially Caucassian race of which the present people of India are their inheritors. There is a smattering of negroid blood in our stock but like the cosmic backround radiation of the big bang, that is the strand of DNA left by the distant ancestors of the human race. The British when they discovered this of the Hindus, they were looking to find in us the greatness of their own race which except for our colour was no different.
The fact that after half a century of their departure from our shores says something about our inability to sort out our identity. Like any great nation, India’s narrative has been woven into the land by history and religious developments which has produced the Hindus of today. There is no doubt that our race can be traced to settlements which have just been recently unearthed in Turkmenstein. Like with our occupatio of Afghanistan, changes wrought in the environment meant that India became the last refuge of our race.
But in the end and even for as great a civilisation such as ours, and because it was so old, it was overtaken by others with new and different ideas. We were beaten and then conquered by the superior arms and ideas of others. There are only two things we need and we have them both. The land of Bharat within borders that have been difficult to defend by virtue of a colonial settlement that our indendence leaders entered into. Even more important, we have the undoubted genious of our race and people. What we have lacked are leaders worthy of leading our country to greatness.
My comments on this site have revealed all too well Gandhi’s and Nehru’s political failings. The Hindu right ever cautious were unable to seize an undivided India from the British, because the powerful British willed that India be divided. Their design was clear. When they were in power, they were as well placed as they were going to make the paradigm shift, and I indeed urged them to do so but was punished for my pains.
Ideas can be powerful powerful agents of change. The idea of a rejuvinated Hindu people and nation had appeal when Saravakar raised it and clothed it in revolutionary language. India is independent of the British yoke but is now under the yoke of another tyranny which is of our own making. This is founded on our inability to make appropriate choice of leaders, laws, language, culture, tastes… The list is endless. Just as the present reality and dilemna of India is rooted in unreality, so is the solution offered in Hindutva and Dharma by the Hindu right. In politics that sometimes is the solution to the sort of problem for which no middle path to be found.
I re-interate that more often as not, ideas such as with Dharma and Hindutva are narative of the victors, and not one which by themselves likely to lead to victory. For that you need the man and the occassion. Even a commission comprising of Rana Pratap, Shivaji et al cannot do what they do not believe. They were men with a dream of freeing Hindus but were unable to do so except in their own small states and within very serious constraints. They believed as did Gandhi and Nehru that Hindus saw themself as being part and parcel of every other faith under the Sun and were unwilling for that reason to make the distinction of India as a nation of Hindus for Hindus with values commensurate of the great civilization that their people are heir to.
“They were men with a dream of freeing Hindus but were unable to do so except in their own small states and within very serious constraints. They believed as did Gandhi and Nehru that Hindus saw themself as being part and parcel of every other faith under the Sun and were unwilling for that reason to make the distinction of India as a nation of Hindus for Hindus with values commensurate of the great civilization that their people are heir to.”
So, what is your proposed solution, Khandu?
To assist Shantanu and others like him. It is clear that we all have a comprehension of the many problems that confound India. The solution has to go to the heart and time is of the essence. The youth of India are already disillusioned and they and their parents would respond to inspiring and dedicated leadership. There has to be program designed by dedicated and technically competent leaders that at least demonstrates their capacity for government. If they aim to be the very best, their rise to office cannot be in much doubt. Their idealism need to be tempered with realism. They need to rise to Krishna’s message to Arjun to give vent to the most noble and courages conduct. This is not a job for any one man but it is good for the polity that only one is appointed at the head to lead and that many leaders are nourished. Great movements have never foundered on the death of any great man. It is quite clear that India needs to be saved by men better suited to government than those that occupy the present seat of government.
@Patriot
Listen to this video and it will dispel any notion that Gandhi and Nehru in their construction and design of the Indian state really fits our need:
@ Khandu –
Youtube is like the Sargasso Sea – whose video are you referencing? And, what are the creds of the author?
And, to assist Shantanu is not an answer – what is your proposed “solution” for India?
thanks
I have given an answer of sorts. It goes without saying that the first priority of any right thinking Hindus is to work towards the removal of the Congress government at the centre. The measure of its success is that just like the BJP, the sadhus who actually came together on a platform for the defence of dharma, need to review the workings of Hindu religion society in much more than the ad hoc manner in which they have all been accustomed. The theeat to them and Hindu society is written large on the wall for all Hindus to see.
I am performing my limited function by chiding and encouraging. I do not know where you come, and from some of your utterences, I gather you need to do some reflecting yourself. How Hindu society should best respond to the challenge of Christianity and Islam has been around long enough for Hindus to have put together a robust defence. We have just seen the BJP shirk its responsibility. We know that under Nehru’s guidance, Hinduism has been left to its own devices and their treasuries raided for the support of Islam. The answer has to come from agencies running parallel to the state.
@ Khandu:
“It goes without saying that the first priority of any right thinking Hindus is to work towards the removal of the Congress government at the centre”
If you look at the vote patterns, you will find that the Congress won because a large segment of the hindus shifted to it during this election. What gives you the right to call them “wrong-thinking hindus” by implication?
“How Hindu society should best respond to the challenge of Christianity and Islam has been around long enough for Hindus to have put together a robust defence”
So, is hindu society responding or not? If yes, then I guess you will rest easy. If no, what is your proposed solution?
Cheers
Among all the learned discussions, I have only one point to make.
Hindu nationalism is never anti-thesis to any other isms. Since Hinduism as a religion does not have a clear shape and bounday it does oppose anything – rahter it always finds a common denominator of synthesis.
If at all we need to, we should find a Hindu nationalism in the background of this edgeless mega structure.
@Patriot
Congress is today in power with a minority of the votes. Actually, they do have a majority in Parliament without outside support. So even with a first past the post voting system, they could not muster a majority. I hardly think that that is a vote of confidence of the Hindus in the Congress Party.
It is equally true that as the Congress increased its tally, the BJP lost seats. The difference in percentage between the two parties is a per cent or two. Not earth shattering. If the BJP had won power with a similar margin, it should have been twisting in anguish when it claims to represent 80% of the population. The Congress Party does not make such lofty claims: it has based its base on Muslims, Dalits, Brahmins and Christians.
Of course Hindu society came to live with Islam and Christianity abd we see that in the movements of Ramakrishna, the teachings of Vivikanada and many others who reminded of the Vedic injunction that all paths lead to Gods. On that logic, if as is happening in India all manner of brutalities are used for conversion, does it mean that a forcefully converted Hindu to Islam or Christianity loses nothing as regards the divinity when his Hindu God has been replaced by the Muslim or Christian one? All the furore by Hindus about conversion activities by Christians and Muslims makes it clear that it only applies as long their paths are separate and divergent. That Vedic injunction is evidently fatuous. It is also puts me on the wrong side of the Hindutva that the BJP has just endorsed. It cannot therefore be conceiveable that Hinduism in its present form an existance in the world without being constantly mauled in one way or other. Does it really help our country when we make a hue and cry because someone has adopted the image in commercial marketing. I never saw that happening with the Chinese and Japanese because they had no wish to see markets closed on them because of intolerant reaction on their part. The result has been that they have advanced by leaps and bounds. When we process in our religion that our India is our motherland, do we best serve her as we have done by living in pretence of greatness or achieve greatness like they have done?
If as our religion claims the one supreme God, why cannot we accept that it is right for those in the West to see Ganesh and Hanuman are gods as mythical? I can assure you that the Greek and Roman Gods of ancient mythology are even today powerful in shaping the cultural and national identity of the West, perhaps more so than Christianity itself. No one is going to raise a hue and cry if any one of them were to be offended.
I am certainly for a Hindu society that can it stands its ground in a responsible and considered way. That cannot ever be the case as long as we as a country are willing to allow our fellow Hindus to suffer in misery and without hope. When we earnestly address their suffering, the power of of Islam and Christianity to play havoc with our social and political would be strongly contained. For us to do nothing which is the path India has followed for too long, do not be surprised if Hinduism loses even the small potency it presently enjoys as a world religion.
@Mod Prakash
Please read what I have written in answer to Patriot. The problem is that the synthesis should have stopped with anceint Bharat.
It is wrong to say that Hindus have voted for congress because they are against the hindu nation. We have million issues facing the country and in a democracy like us how the hell people are supposed to choose between different parties when none of them fits the bill.
It’s an open secret that even Congress didn’t expect this mandate. They just got it. They don’t know how they got it.
BJP donesn’t have a leadership. It’s as simple as that. For that matter country is facing a dearth of leadership. That’s how it has all along been.
@ Khandu/Surya:
“It is wrong to say that Hindus have voted for congress because they are against the hindu nation”
“The Congress Party does not make such lofty claims: it has based its base on Muslims, Dalits, Brahmins and Christians. ”
So, Khandu, Dalits and Brahmins are not Hindus? Interesting, in which case, India presumably is not a majority hindu nation, in any case.
Surya, so the “hindus” who voted for the congress are not hindus, according to you because the Congress is against the hindus? Interesting, have you asked these hindus why they voted for the Congress – because even if were to assume that 100% of muslims (16% of Indian population) and 100% of christians (2% of Indian population) voted for the Congress, you still do not get to the vote share that the Congress actually received c. 38%. So, what is your explanation?
“It’s an open secret that even Congress didn’t expect this mandate. They just got it.”
Must be nice to win, when you are not even expecting it! 🙂
@ Khandu:
Ah, now I get it – you want to join the Abrahaminic religions in saying that its my way or the highway – witness your comments –
“we see that in the movements of Ramakrishna, the teachings of Vivikanada and many others who reminded of the Vedic injunction that all paths lead to Gods”
and then this gem:
“All the furore by Hindus about conversion activities by Christians and Muslims makes it clear that it only applies as long their paths are separate and divergent. That Vedic injunction is evidently fatuous.”
I guess you will have to set up a new party now that both the RSS and the BJP are toeing the line of Hinduism not being “exclusive”. Sad for you, Khandu. Your own kattarwads have let you down – why bring poor Gandhi (who was against conversions) and Nehru (who was agnostic, if not an atheist) into your diatribe?
It is really ironic that the guys who have been making the most noise about conversions (alleged and real) have been the VHP and its allied monkey brigades – now their parent organisation, the RSS, says that we should be more inclusive and the actions of the monkey brigades have harmed the Hindu cause.
Oooooooooooooooops.
“The ideology of Hindutva is often misrepresented and misunderstood… Hindutva is about plurality of thought, and plurality of faith.”
– M. G. Vaidya, RSS Ideologue
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/first-time-rss-slams-varun-hate-speech/477251/0
@Patriot
I never said that Hinduism as a religion is demarcated in the way of Christianity and Islam, nay even ancient Hindu society ever pretended that it was one nation. One can be forgiving if the religion embraced the rest of world (like Christianity in America) but was clear about the identity and boundary of the country itself. That has not been the case with Hindu India, because the primary principle for any Hindu has been to secure his own personal advantage. So unlike the Chinese whould have fallen behind their national leader to defend their country, it was the Hindu king at Taxila who opened the gates for Alexandria to invade India. This sort of behaviour has been exhibited to this day. The Brahmins who had claimed to be have been the defenders of India had formed the block that has militated against Hindu interests for some decades now. I see that behaviour as no different to the behaviour of those kings and others who have betrayed India in its long history.
When I frankly claim that the brahmins had formed the block with dalits and muslims that had governed India, that fact is not in dispute. As for them and for that matter beings hindus or not can be relegated to an exerise in the definition of the word itself. If hindus did not in the first place have a word to describe our religion says everythings about its gaping hole which I am saying is not answered by our greats who were satisfied by inclusion of any and all divergent paths.
The word hindu itself was not created to define the hindu religion, but rather used by others to categorise what had been the predominent religious practices of India without any claim for it to be definitive answer on the
subject. That the only word approaching the word religion for it in Sanatan Dharma (eternal law) is generic to embrace a variety of different practices and inherently philosophical rather than religious.
What I am certainly saying is that they took the first steps in restoring the pride of the Hindus. That work needs to be completed by breaking it free altogether of contamination and by reformation to bring it into line with todays world.
Membership of abrahamic religions is not open to hindus unless they forgo their present practices. Neither am I bound by the fashion of the day whether they are represented by the BJP or the RSS.
Apparently many Hindus, including (or perhaps especially) the ones in RSS seem very confused about what Hinduism is and isn’t. Check out this article explaining why Hinduism is not radical universalism.
http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm
The problem seems to be that the organizations representing Hindu interests have neither the intelligence nor the inclination to actually get their facts right.
@Harapriya
Thanks. The link you provided confirms that Radical Universalism is not the answer. I will need time for closer scutiny of the material.
@Harapriya
I accept that in ancient times the Vedas provided the authoritive source of the religion of India. But the Vedas themselves became the strictly guarded secrets of the Brahmins. The Bhagavid Geeta was produced by sage Vyas to make it accessible to the widest possible number of Hindus. As it encapulates the teacings of the Vedas, there was no need to go the Vedas for what they can already find in it.
Also, the tradition of learning through a teacher meant that it was the teacher as much as the source that was instrumental in shaping the religious beliefs. That is also the appeal to Westerners who have made the journey from Christianity to Hinduism: the belief that in Hinduism, a person has freedom on how he choses to make the journay for his own salvation.
The teachings of the Vedas were identified with the Brahmins, so when Bhudda chose to disagree with them on their orthadox teachings, he started his own movement. It proved likewise with Jainism and others. Christianity’s origin from Judaism was different in one respect to the Hindu one. Christ as indeed Christianity was rejected by the Jews. My reading into it is that they were not willing to concede natioanlism to the Gandhianism that Jesus practised. Christianity then came to be built around the personality of Jesus and came to be the accepted religion of non-Jews. Although Christianity is a separate rather than a different religion to Judaism, doctrinal differences have withered away in how it has been practiced in America. So for example, it is the norm for the American to circumcised ( Jewish and not Christian practice). America’s unquestioning support for Israel is predicated on the unity of Christianity with Judaism.
If Brahmins viz a viz their Vedas are similarly placed to the Hindus Bhagavid Gita, they stand on mutually exclusive ground. Unit is not so easily found. If that was the case they would not be acting as a block with the Muslims to undermine the Hindus of India. I am not saying that it is entirely the Brahmins fault, because they are after all a small community who are hardly responsible for the failings of the majority Hindu population.
Since I have been strenuously saying that universal radicalism falsely represents the best interests of the Hindus, I find the sort of lip service that the RSS pays to it an abnegation of their responsibility to lead with any clarity of purpose or vision. I want to see the majority Hindus and Brahmins move from their fixed and immutable positions in recognition of the harm that they are doing to the Hindus of India, and indeed the country itself.
@Khandu Patel. “But the Vedas …became the strictly guarded secrets of the Brahmins” Well, not anymore. The entire Veda is available on the Web in transliteration and translation and pretty much accessible to anyone. Furthermore, at least in Tamil Nadu, anyone can study to become a Temple priest and has access to all the ancient texts .
“Brahmins…acting to undermine the Hindus of India” Before levelling such a charge you better have some proof. In fact, much of the impetus to preserve the traditional Hinduism seems to be from the Brahmin community, whether it is the desire to preserve the ancient texts on palm leaves which are now being put online, or the number of people from the Brahmin commmunity who serve as gurus, tranmitting the teachings of the scriptures so that it is available to the masses. Even the Rama Sethu was stalled because a “Brahmin” in the form of Subramaniam Swamy decided to file a court case.
Look into every pro-Hindu movement or organization and I bet you’ll find a person of the brahmin community.
There is an important message here–the rest of Hindu community cannot just exclude the Brahmins as some villainous creature, and then expect them to actually do something for Hinduism.
Brahmins invariably face bad PR no matter what they do: if they serve to preserve the Hindu dharma and samaj they are accused of wanting to hold onto the inequalities of the past; and if they don’t do anything, they are accused of betraying the Hindu society.
Part of the reason why Hindus find unity so elusive is that we are in fact, what Dr. Frank Morales calls, Neo-Hindus. We as a class know of the scriptures only by name and not content and we also have accepted the history of ourselves as told by the British and other Europeans. It is almost as though we are searching for the truth about ourselves in this environment–one that combines a lack of knowledge with the arrogance of certitude that we actually know what we are searching for.
Part of the Neo-Hindu identity is the desire to mold Hinduism into categories that are acceptable to the West. This has actually been a long process, dating back to the Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda, who thought that Hinduism should be the strictly the Vedic religion of fire sacrifices and not the murthy worshipping bhakthi movement of later years. Here too, you find an individual who has internalized the concept that murthy (idol) worship is wrong. The funniest thing is that no Hindu actually worships the idol as the limited stone sculpture that it is–it is a symbol of something greater –yet most Neo Hindus will call their murthis idols, demeaning their own tradition.
The twin charges that there was never a Hindu nation and that Hindu kings of the past were never fighting for the Hindu nation, usually levelled by Neo Hindus is again a product of ignorance. A more careful reading both the Ramayana and Mahabharata will reveal that though there were many princely states, these all understood the common dharma that united them, as well as a common beliefs. That is why both Rama and Ravana offer prayers to the same Lord Shiva and why both these epics were celebrated all over India in all the regional languages and cultures. It is also the reason why Adi Shankara was able to go from his home state in Kerala all the way to Kashmir and set up his Mathas.
The charge that Hindu Kings were not fighting for the Hindu dharma and it was merely the desire to protect their kingdom is again a Neo Hindu reading of history. We are constantly told by them that all the Mughal rulers were also Indian and should be thought of as such and not as outsiders. Actually, the Mughals, and other Islamic invaders and rulers considered themselves as outsiders, and of a superior culture than the Hindus. They never thought of the locals as their own people. Hence, the desire to constantly subjugate them by destroying their places of worship etc. So present day Hindus considering these rulers as outsiders is the correct reading of history. Shivaji also knew this–hence fighting the outsiders to protect ones nation (state)a is in fact fighting for dharma.
@Harapriya
I think we are in danger of dissipating our energy in endless debate without any resolution. We need to bring more order than exists.
The way I see it is that the orthadox Hindus want to rely solely on the Vedas as the source, whereas most of the nation goes by the Bhagavid Gita. The Bhagavid Gita should be the single authority for all Hindus and the Vedas relegated to the postion of the old testabment. The old testament is very important as I no doubt believe the Vedas to be too. So instead of the Brahmins fighting this, why cannot they join the rest of the Hindus in this unifying process?
Thank you for agreeing that the position of priests should be open to people who are brahmins by temperament and training and not soley by caste. Even the VHP does not practice this.
I agree that that there has been a Hindu cultural and religious ethos identified with the land mass of India. Equally, the betrayel of Bharat by Hindu leaders is an unescapble fact of today. I have every right to be agrieved by the brahmins as a caste who in the last election voted to return the Congress Pary to power. Lets not quible about words, they may have ceased to be brahmins or are now mere Hindus because their conduct is unbecoming of them. Neither do I want to spare the rest of the Hindus who did likewise. There is no doubt that the BJP has serious faults as indeed their associated organisations but everyone voting with their feets has been the greatest of Hindu failings.
It was right to complain about the designs and and wrongs of the British and their Christians when they were ruling but in this election, India reinstated them no less in the person of Sonia Gandhi and her followers. It is a fatal mistake to ignore the reasons why Hindus did this and not to escape from it as if it is some sort of British conspiracy. The British did indeed make an assault on Hindu practices and customs such as sutee and they were bound to do so as rulers and how else were they to do it than by making comparison of their own.
What Ram Mohan Roy did was to incorporate Christian rationalism into Hinduism because Hinduism to this day is unable to bring rationale discourse into how it should be governed. I am not persuaded that that made him crypto Christian. I think the problem started when Ramakrishna and others went beyond stating the glaringly obvious that religions have some commonality to the conclusion that they are different ways to reach the same God.
The problem for most Hindus is prayer’s are not offered to a God but to any one of the many deities, call them murthy idols if you will. The diversity of practices might seemingly unite the prayer with the absolute, but as is evident, the nation needs to sing from a single hymn sheet. That is impossible if there is no end to debate and a settlement of doctrines. We need to as Hindu community do somethings together regularly and systematically without the intrusion of others on our space. That is by the adoption of the Bhagavid Gita as the common prayer book of all Hindus.
@Khandu. Apparently you are one of the neo-hindus. The reason the Bhagavad Gita cannot replace the Vedas and Vedanta, is that it is correctly referred to as Smriti and therefore of lesser importance than the revealed knowledge of Shruti. Sruthi includes Vedanta , which upon reading will reveal to the the reader that it is concerned with philosophical insights which are not covered with much depth in the Gita. What you are suggesting is that we should take the dumbed down version of Hindu thought instead of trying to ponder the profound thoughts contained in Vedanta.
Ram Mohan Roy did not incorporate Christian rationalism because there really is no Christian rationalism–merely Christians rationalizing intolerance against native religions. What he did, and others like him do, is to cover feelings of inadequacy about his own traditions because, like so many, he had little scriptural knowledge and felt inferior. What he did do was fight for the abolition of Sati which in some parts of India has become routine practice. However, he, as did the British, assumed wrongly that the practice was the result of the scriptures as opposed to the response to the stess of Islamic terrorism.
To refer to the devotion of millions of Hindus who regularly indulge in murthy puja as some sort of bizarre practice and a problem for Hindus and Hinduism is not only ignorant but very arrogant. Hindus all know that it is the Supreme Bhagawan that they worship and yet they approach It in different forms and tolerate the different deitites of others. What you seem to want Hindus to do, is to become a crass imitation of Christianity–with its concept of one book, one god, one path and one goal. This is fundamentally opposed to the Hindu notion of experience. In Hinduism one experiences God–that is the purpose of darshan and puja and yoga and meditation. One does not seek eternal life in a heaven beside God (as do the Christians and Muslims) because in Hinduism, one is never separate from God. That is the experience–the recognition of the non-separateness. Therefore, the whole idea of making Hinduism another Abhramic religion with its obsession with heaven and hell and eternal life seems to be the antithesis of Hinduism. What you are suggesting sir is to set back a religon by several thousand years.
In fact, it is in recognition of the limitations of Christian theology, that now churches in India regularly borrow teachings from the Upanishads and try to pass it of as Jesus’s words . As an intellectual exercise, every Hindu should pick up the New Testament or Koran and read it and follow that with at least two Upanishads. That might teach them to feel a little better about their own religion.
@Harapriya
I have no doubt that there are issues with the Gita that perhaps need addressing. Again my comparison with the Christian’s New Testament and Jews Old Testament should provide an example of how accomodation can be made.
Let me clear. Jesus was not pronouncing philosphical systems. His teachings are mostly in the role of ethics and morality. This is the New Testament Christian bible. God or Jehovah is the creature of the Old Testament. When Christians talk about God, it is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. There is no reason why Hinduism cannot similarly make accomodation of the two strands.
The Christians have been using all manner of practices to wean away Hindus. Passing off the Upanishads as the words of Jesus is a little surprising because they themselves should find in its teachings benefits not had in Christian teachings. Why would they not convert to Hinduism instead? The numerous practices of Hinduism has provided them a repertoire of methods for conversion activities. It is hardly possible to fashion effective strategies in such circumstances against a skillful and determined champion of their religion.
The Christian religion may not contain philosphical systems that contained in the Vedas. Western science made the leap for the West because Christianity freed them up to think for themselves. I can assure you that Western philosophy is no second rate contraption either. I am afraid that Hindus would remain trapped within the narrow limits of capability if it had to be solely derived from the Vedas as illuminating as they are.
If what I believe to be best for Hinduism fit for the age we live in and therefore a neo-Hindu, I would happily where that as a badge of honour. I can assure because I am not in the least lacking in poise and self assurance, that I am willing to think out of the box, not because of any feeling of inferiority.
Now that Mahatma Khandu has spoken, it is expected that the ‘hindus’ of the world would abandon their Old Testament, the Vedas, to their Jews, the Brahmins and adopt the Gita as their New Testament.
It is also hoped that Mahatma Khandu will take the lead in establishing the New Church of the Hindus in line with the Christian Church of yore which will conduct inquisitions and holy wars to ensure that the heretic and blasphemous books of the Brahmins are deservedly not entertained by the orthodox Hindus.
After that, it is also hoped that the Mahatma will advise all Hindus to stop murti puja and break all their idols, those being the corrupt practices of evil Brahmins, followed by a holy jihad to rescue the disobeying Kafir ‘hindus’, if there are any, from eternal damnation and hell.
Subsequent to all this, it is further hoped that the grateful ‘hindus’ will await the second and final coming of the Mahatma to take them all to the Father in Heaven whose Thigh will be Done!
Amen.
Incognito,
There is a small difference between a forum where you write something and a high school debating club. In a debating club, the submission is verbal, and no one can re-hear it. So volume, scintillating word-play and put-downs count for much more than content. Once you write something and hit the “Submit” button, we are there for posterity. So a pinch less of the sarcasm and contempt, and a pinch more of content is called for. Otherwise, we do not achieve the purpose of this forum. I admit, people like me might find it difficult to even perceive a new idea. But young people like you can use this form as a sounding board to try out new ideas, however outré they might look in the beginning. After all, each new generation has a duty to push the envelope. Khandu’s ideas might be right or wrong. But a real discussion might throw up an interesting idea that we are not even aware exists within ourselves.
I’m curious – how many people commenting here have read the Vedas (or parts of it), or a summary? Would one of you like to write a guest post on what you read in the Vedas and how you found it enlightening or insightful? Thanks.
testing
@ Khandu –
“If what I believe to be best for Hinduism fit for the age we live in and therefore a neo-Hindu, I would happily where that as a badge of honour. I can assure because I am not in the least lacking in poise and self assurance, that I am willing to think out of the box, not because of any feeling of inferiority”
I am curious about one aspect of your thinking, although I now understand where you are coming from.
IF to defend your faith, you take on the characteristics of the aggressor faith, and then win, have you still not LOST the war (although you may won a specific battle) because you have become your enemy?
In which case, was it EVEN worth fighting over it? To become a duplicate?
@ Jayadevan –
Do not feed the trolls. 🙂
Cheers
It is of interest that wise words have started to issue from sources so far associated with other things (eg. satyameva-jayate.org/2009/03/24/caste-system-discrimination-2/ )
People change.
Then again, sometimes, it only appears so.
Hitopadesa tells the story of a jackal who talked ‘Vasudaiva kutumbakam’.
Panchatantra tells of a cat that behaved like a sage.
So advice such as ” pinch less of the sarcasm and contempt, and a pinch more of content is called for ” sounds reasonable when considered in isolation but when past examples of “content” / “sarcasm and contempt” from the same source is considered, these words seem similar to that in the stories.
The above observation need not to be considered as a ‘put down’. It does have enough merit to prompt a re-think by the “adviser”, if he is so interested, as to whether his aims are congruent with overall good for himself and the society or whether narrow dogmatic beliefs are clouding his mind and colouring his behaviour.
That said, the past record of incongruity of source with the current message does not make the message completely irrelevant.
The comment 33 is meant to bring out the influence of Christian thought in comments 27, 30 and 32 in a satrirical way.
Christian thought influenced Gandhi also significantly.
Pervasiveness of its influence in society is considerable, but remains undetected and unrecognized. Such influence on commenter 34 himself is evident in his previous comments ( Analysed in comment 10 of blog post- satyameva-jayate.org/2009/03/24/caste-system-discrimination-2/ )
The so-called globalization which is actually westernization (discussed in detail by Mr Rajiv Malhotra in his articles at- rajivmalhotra.com) influences the thinking of indian society in overt and covert ways. And it is not by accident.
(Rajiv Malhotra in his articles also discusses the civilizational conflicts that are emerging and how different ideologies are exerting influence all over the world in subtle and in open ways.)
Influence of monotheistic ideologies of christianity, islam and communism have become so strong in present day indian society that indians by and large seek to bring monotheistic ideals into their lives, sometimes without realising it themselves.
Comments 27, 30 and 32 are efforts in that direction.
The book ‘Eclipse of the Hindu Nation’ by Radha Rajan gives insights into the thought processes that influenced Gandhi and his effect on indian society of that time and how such influences shaped the nation as it is now.
It is interesting to note that the different monotheistic ideologies mentioned above pursue their own characteristic ways to influence society at large.
Islam has its concepts of Dar-ul-Harb, Dar-ul-Islam and taqqiya.
Communism uses Gramscian ideas for dominating academia, ‘intellectuals’ and educational institutions to influence society apart from activism spreading discontent among masses.
Christianity traditionally tries to influence the leaders of the society and through them the masses. Of late they are applying that technique to the leaders of communication mediums such as newspapers and TV channels.
In India at present the christian influence over its leaders, political and non-political, is phenomenal and totaly disproportionate to the population of christianity in this country.
But it is worthwhile noting that the leaders are influenecd so that the massess can be influenced, and it is by spreading such influence that converts are made possible. During the time of Constantine the spread of that influence was through the sword and therefore rapid. Today it is more subtle and therefore comparatively slower in appearance, but appearances are deceptive.
The trend in society towards overtly accepting western lifestyle as part of ‘globalization’, which is made out to be inevitable, and subtly accepting western thought processes through being influenced covertly, will, over a period of time, result in complete transformation of the indians into intellectual slaves to the different monotheistic ideologies.
In pre-independence india that transformation took place at fast pace.
The effect of which is continuing even now.
The matter of concern is that monotheism by its very nature goes against Mother Nature. Nature is diverse and it is its diversity that helps Nature sustain itself.
Ancient India supported diversity and therefore was vibrant and self-sustaining. It did not require conquest of other lands or of Nature for its growth.
Monotheism on the contrary cannot sustain itself precisely because of its monotheistic nature.
It needs to seek and destroy the ‘other’ for its sustenance. That is what prompted monotheistic ideologies of christianity, islam, communism and capitalism to cause destruction of entire civilizations, death of millions of people all over the world, enslavement of millions, destruction of Nature and extinction of many species of animals.
This trend to destroy the ‘other’ is taking humans towards destruction of the life-supporting system of earth.
The Purusha is destroying the Prakriti.
The value of ancient indian philosphy becomes relevant in this context.
In fact that philosophy of sustaining diversity alone is capable of sustaining life on planet.
Will the indians realize that ?
Or will they wait for the westerner to adopt the philosophy of their ancestors before they do so themselves and thus waiting, contribute to destruction of life on earth ?
@Patriot
You are talking about Hinduism as though it is set in stone. It has accretion of layer upon layer of beliefs and practices that have changed over time not to mention proliferated sects upon sects annd spin off religions because they not find what was acceptable to them. I can point to Buddism, Janinism, and Sikhism to name a few.
You may be the world’s authority on the Vedas but will mean nothing to those who claim to believe and practice it. No one will win any arguements by behaving with the height of arrogance when questions are asked of it. The Brahmins preserved the Vedas as a secret unto to themselves and were unwilling to share with others because of which the practice of idols worship was allowed to predominate. (That was also true of Christian priests until printing made the bible available to the masses.) I nuderstand the Vedas as an important religious text but it is not the only one. Could you tell me why the Vedas are unavailable in Courts in the way the Gita is available for the making of oaths.
Now that you recognise that the Vedas are religious texts, they are not philosphical treatise. For the texts to qualify as philosphy, they have to be open to free and fair analysis and debate. It is something you are not willing to subject them to.
I understand the abuse the Indian Christians are subjecting Hindus to. You will win no arguements by displaying ignorance of their own religion. On the whole, I am willing to entertain discussions but I will have none of your abuse.
@Khandu. “Brahmins preserved the Vedas as a secret…which allowed the practice of idol worship” That is technically inaccruate. The initial vedic period consisted of the fire sacrifices which seem to have been done both at a state level (sponsored by the King and paid by the state) as well as the individual who maintained a homam in the home. Temples may have existed but we have no proof of it. It is entirely possible that temples were built of wood and did not withstand environmental degradation. We do know from the Indus valley seals that a form of Shiva as Pasupathi seemed to have been present.
Since society was divided largely on occupation, the priests were entrusted with the task of memorizing and transmitting the Vedas over generations. We rarely see people who wanted to cross over to other occupations although there are a few examples in the Mahabharata, where Drona, a brahmin, becomes a warrior and in the Ramayana, where Vishwamitra, a King (kshatriya) becomes a rishi.
Temple worship with its murthy seems more common during and after the Buddhist and Jain period. This is when we see many stone temples come about.
The concept of ishta devata became very popular during the bhakthi movement, which seems to have coincided with the Islamic invasions. Many do think that the bhakthi movement came about because we were a besieged population whose places of worship were routinely destroyed. It aslo helped give people a personal relationship with God which didn’t require much learning or effort.
“Vedas are religious texts…not philosophical treatise” Technically Vedas can be considered both. Vedas consist of four parts but which for the purposes of our discussion can be divided into two –the karma khanda (portion dealing with rituals, hyms, instructions on rituals,) and the Vedanta–the philosophical discussion of what is the true nature of reality . Each Veda has attached to it Vedanta (which actually means the latter portion of the Vedas and not the end of Vedas as routinely translated). Vedanta is considered a part of Indian philosophy.
There is a debate among western academics whether the word philosophy can even be applied to non European thought, since philosophy in the west developed as an opposition to religious belief. However, if we define philosophy as the search for truth about the nature of our reality, Vedanta is philosophy.
The reason why we don’t use the Vedas to make oaths is entirely a politcal decision. It is my belief that this was the result of Hindus, who had an anglicised education during the late 1800s and early 1900s, were trying to reinvent Hinduism and make it fit into the one book, one god version of religion.
@Khandu. Western philosophy is not based on Christianity. Philosophy in the west originates with Aristotle, Plato and Socrates–none of whom were Christians. Tradionally, philosophy in the West is traced back to the Greco-Roman civilization. With the fall of of the Roman Empire, the Christians merely appropriated the philosophy of the greeks and Romans to further their religion–i.e. search for a scientific/philosophical proof of their faith. They were largely unsuccessful, since both philosophy and science in the West is the direct repudiation of their religious beliefs. That is why we still see conflicts of interest when faith meets reason. This is the reason schools in Kansas teach intelligent design instead of evolution and the former president banned stem cell research.
My contention was never that our philosophical systems were better than the west, merely that Indian philosophy as a subject matter does exist and deserves study. Neither is it my claim that Hinduism is the greatest religion on earth–merely that as religion it deserves respect and should be protected because it represents the mosaic of beliefs of a large segment of humanity.
@Patriot. “If to defend your faith…have you not lost”
It is interesting that you pose the same question that Arjuna asks in the Gita. And the answer is the same. To defend dharma, if fighting is what will do it, then we must fight. Do we become aggressors if we fight against the aggression of others? No. Do we become intolerant if we refuse to tolerate the intolerance of others? No. Do we become terrorists if we fight terrorism against us. No.
Defense even if it is a preemptive offense, is still defense against a known threat.
=>
IF to defend your faith, you take on the characteristics of the aggressor faith, and then win, have you still not LOST the war (although you may won a specific battle) because you have become your enemy?
=>
Patriot, what characteristics are you talking about? And doesn’t your statement assume that the “aggressor faith” has no positives and that it is inherently “inferior” and your faith needs to maintain its “superiority” just by the virtue of not being like the “aggressor faith” in any aspect? Yet, many who think that way, also contradict themselves when they claim that “all faiths are equal and deserve respect”, or thoughts to that effect.
It takes a thorn to take out a thorn, no?
लोहे को लोहा काटता है.
I personally see no virtue in tolerance of intolerance or injustice, and this reasoning of “we’ll become like them” seems to me based on fear and avoiding confrontation – the “why can’t we all get along?” mentality, forgetting that it takes two to tango. I think Jayadevan sometimes indulges in the same kind of misdirection when he makes statements about “them” sharing physical features, food and clothing with “us” in response to valid criticism of “them”. I’m not advocating needless aggression (like Bush’s Iraq war), but the preparedness to fight and defend instead of continuing to appease.
Then again, it says something that AFAIK almost all of the commenters here are non-Muslims/non-Christians discussing issues that pertain to others – there’s no engagement with people of the “aggressor faith” who are conspicuous by their absence from the discussion.
@Harapriya
The reason why the Gita is used is because the Brahmins made it an offence punishable by being blinded if a non-brahmin was so much as to learn the Vedas. I am hear trying to criticise the Brahmins for their conduct because that was also law as was understood by society then. What I am saying is that if those who live by the Vedas live in one world and those who live by the Gita live another, they might as well be two different religions to all intents and purposes. Anyone British official engaging a Hindu in administration of Hindu religious affairs has to identify their sect, etc and is astonished by any claim that the Hindus are represented by one religion. The astonishing name calling I am witnessing here confirms the truth of their perception that Hinduism is riven with religious and doctrinal divisions.
If you take the example of the Chinese, for whatever reason they did not take to their religion with the same obsession that we Hindus have done. That is why the moral teachings of Confucious took root very firmly. The Chinese accomodate Buddishm etc, yet they have none of the problems that India has with its religions. The only exception is Islam which made the news today.
The failing seems to be in Hindu and Christian societies which no amount of crafting of the right social and administrative structure is able to remedy. I have certainly seen in England the suspicians sown in the minds of some Christian who look on Hindus with a loathing that I could never find in the English Christians. I have on this site found some Hindu counterparts. Religion may provide the divides, but it is the nature of India as a country which is filled with hate and misunderstanding.
35- I’m curious – how many people commenting here have read the Vedas (or parts of it), or a summary? Would one of you like to write a guest post on what you read in the Vedas and how you found it enlightening or insightful? Thanks.
Interesting isn’t it, that indians do not know the Vedas ?
This is meant as an observation about indians in general, not any individual in particular.
But most of them know that ancient india was full of caste divisions.
They know that non-brahmins were blinded as punishment if they learned Vedas.
They know that burning of widows was integral to their customs and traditions.
They know that women were discriminated and kept under ghoonghat.
They know that child marriage was the norm.
They know that blind unreasonable superstition and worshipping of stones was rampant.
They know that sacrifice of animals and even children was carried out by their ancestors to propitiate Godesses.
They know that their ancestors worshipped cows and drank urine.
But they DON’T KNOW the Vedas of their ancestors.
They DON’T KNOW the Upanishads, Brahmanas, Aranyakas of their ancestors.
They DON’T KNOW the Smrutis
Sutras
Shastras of their ancestors which number in THOUSANDS .
What made indians abandon the traditions and philosophy of their anscestors without examining them ?
From where did they know all that they know without having read any of the texts of their ancestors ?
It is like somebody putting his mother in chains because his neighbour said she is mad.
That is what indians are now. Deracinated imbeciles who repudiate and abuse the traditions and their anscetors on the say so of greedy selfish outsiders without caring to read the texts of their anscetors to understand the truth.
The book “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle“ which is the topic of this blog significantly brings out the effect of such deracinated indoctrinated impotent intellects on the nation and its society.
But such books are only for the Kshatriyas. Those who seek to uphold righteousness.
Not for the majority of indian populace who are engaged in the Vyshya activity of increasing material possessions and not for those who display the Sudra characteristic of holding on to dogmas and believing propaganda without seeking proof.
—
The Vedas are said to be given only to Brahmanas.
So who is a Brahmana is the question.
In Upanishads Satyakama Jabala is recognised as a Brahmana by his Guru even though his mother could not tell who his father was, because he displayed an inquiring mind, steadfastness to truth and desire to know the ultimate spiritual truth about the universe .
That is who a Brahmana is.
It is only to such a person that the Vedas will become clear.
Is it any wonder that Sudras like Wendy Doniger can see only meaningless rituals, war and strife and sex with animals in Vedas whereas developed truth seeking minds such as Schopenhauer, Thoreau, Voltaire, Oppenheimmer, Emerson and numerous other westerners found transcendental wisdom in the Vedas.
This explains why it is said that Vedas should only be given to Brahmanas.
Varnashrama of ancient indians was purely on character of the person. And character is changeable.
Ratnakar, the jungle thief, a Vyshya-Sudra by character became sage Valmiki, a Brahmana when he found spiritual truth.
Dhrutarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were childrens of the Brahmana Veda Vyasa. Of them, it was only Vidura, born to a servant woman who displayed the characteristics of a Brahmana and therefore attained wisdom. Drutarashtra behaved like a Sudra when he allowed his putra moha to overcome his sense of righteousness. Pandu did likewise when he allowed amorous thoughts to subdue his better sense.
Its no wonder that Swami Vivekananda asked indians to Wake Up! from their deep slumber.
His call was heard by many of that time like Sri Aurobindo.
But most of indians today follow the lead of Kumbhakarna and Ravana.
To sum up,
Vedas, are to be read only with the mind of a Brahmana, as exemplified by Satyakama Jabala. Since Sattva rises during early morning time, that time is more suitable for such activity.
The book “Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle“ is to be read only with the mind of a Kshatriya, seeking to uphold righteousness. Since Rajas rises during day time, that time is suitable.
Books like “Rich Dad Poor Dad” is to be read only with the mind of a Vyshya, seeking material advancement. Afternoons and evenings suitable.
Books like ‘Western novels’, ‘Mills and Boons’ and ‘Thrillers’ are for the fantasy loving mind of a Sudra.
All four Varnas are part of every person. He is free to develop whatever he chooses.
@Khandu. It is a mistake to assume that the Bhagavad Gita represents thoughts and ideas different from the Vedas and Vedanta. What is in the Gita is merely a distilled version of Vedanta. One can get the gist of Vedanta from the Gita and it is true that the Gita will provide the layman immediate comfort for what bothers him. The Vedanta does take some effort–it generally requires a guru who has the capacity to transmit the knowledge and also a pupil who is ready to receive it.
Both Gita and Upanishads address the fundamental question of “Who am I”. However, the Upanishads is more concerned with answering that question by presenting the equation “Tat tvam asi ” (Thou are that) and explaining what you and that are as well as why they are the same.
The Gita answers the question slightly differently. How one defines oneself often determines what one does. So the
Gita addresses the question of what one must do. How does one determine what is dharma and how does one do it even if it is something one doesn’t want to do.
The message of the Gita is applicable to our daily conflicts of interest and decision making process. That is why we now have management gurus teaching the Gita as a management tool. (In fact there seems to a Gita for everyone–Gita for housewives, Gita for tennis players etc.)
However, the fundamental difference between the Gita and the Upanishads is that the Upanishads seem to veer more toward advaita (nondualism) whereas the Gita is used by both the Dvaita and Advaita schools of thought. Adi Shankara’s commentaries interpret the Gita in light of Vedanta whereas both Ramanuja and Madvacharya interpret it in the light of dvaita (Vishishta advaita and dvaita).
This is really amazing. In one thread, I am accused of being an anti-Hindu zealot who wishes to destroy our old culture, by my impertinent questions. In another thread, I am accused of wanting to hang on to old customs and culture, while refusing to see new view points!!!! Brilliant.
@ Harapriya –
First of all, thanks for the last post – really interesting.
“To defend dharma, if fighting is what will do it, then we must fight. Do we become aggressors if we fight against the aggression of others? No.”
No disagreements on this score. No disagreements on preemptive offence as a form of defence, as well. If this was about our borders and our realms, I think you will find virtually everybody lining up behind you. Do remember that the War in Mahabharata, which spawned the Gita, was a dispute about property rights, at the end of the day.
But, if you are talking about protecting your faith, then it becomes a more “nebulous” concept – Khandu has elaborated his path of defence. Would you like to elaborate yours?
@ Kaffir –
“Patriot, what characteristics are you talking about? And doesn’t your statement assume that the “aggressor faith†has no positives and that it is inherently “inferior†and your faith needs to maintain its “superiority†just by the virtue of not being like the “aggressor faith†in any aspect?”
The characteristics one god (deity), one book, and mainly one process – those are the characteristics I am talking about. And, yes, I do believe that the diversity in thinking encouraged by Vedanta is superior to that of the monotheistic religions.
“I personally see no virtue in tolerance of intolerance or injustice, and this reasoning of “we’ll become like them†seems to me based on fear and avoiding confrontation”
I agree fully with you on this, Kaffir – my contention to Khandu was based solely on the previous para, and limited to that – I certainly do not want hinduism to be straight jacketed into a singular thought process. Besides that, let your response be as robust as you want. (And, as far as robust responses go, I think we should be like the USA – hurt one of us, and we will come after you with everything we have got)
I confront all forms of intolerance, as you should well know. But, while confronting intolerance and being intolerant of intolerance, one should not end up becoming intolerant in entirety, if you get what i am saying.
@ Khandu –
You misjusge me completely about my motives – do read some of my other posts in other threads – you may get a better sense of what I stand for.
Cheers
@Haripriya
Thank you for clarrifying the difference that you have identified between the Gita and the Vedas. As you say yourself, the Gita is self contained and the Vedas require an instructor to navigate its complexities.
The philosphy that is ascribed in the Vedas bears some comparison to the Greek idea of God which came to be embodied into Christianity. Put simply, the Christian God is as ominpresent and all pervading as Brahman. The only difference is that the Christian God is presented in an act of faith, and Brahman couched in the language of logic and the truth of the Vedas. The soul is mentioned in the Socratic dialogues of Plato which eventually found itself into the teachings of Christianity. That is also where the resemblence ends.
Religion was never the be and end all of Greek society and Greek thought and society was in ferment at the time of Plato. The Greek had by then already relegated their priests to a mere ceremonial role and law and politics in the ascendant. They no longer believed in their ancient Gods Zeus et all. They subscribed instead to philosphy which explained to them the world in physical and not religious terms. This was also a time of explosion of knowledge for them. India had already made the same journay in explosion of knowledge.
The sceptism of the Greeks concerned Plato who devloped an idea of a spirtual type of God which appears to be a path that the Hindus trod in the Vedas from Gods of nature such as Indra to Brahman. The develoment of religious thoughts of both societies to the same challenges bear striking similarities although the paths taken by them could not have been more different.
Philosophy no longer has the potency it had in ancient Greece and India. It is no longer comprehensive as areas of study that it covered detached themselves as scientific disciplines in mathematics, physics et al. If Hindus of the orthadox school continue to package it as comprehensive philosophy, it cannot conceiveably occupy a place of relevance to the disciplines of the modern age unless one wished Taliban like to return India to an era where scientific advance of the sort we have today is absent.
India made such great advances in its time of which we can be proud. Unfortunately for a very long time we have stood still in ideas that matter more than esoteric ideas about our religion. Poor poltical leadership of India is a failing worthy of our wholehearted attention which is not going to be achieved if we cannot sort out the message we want to send to our people. India has not managed this well in the more than one thousand years since Islam and Christianity strode confidently on to the world stage. That makes the urgency of dealing with the failings of our religious institutions even more pressing.
@Patriot. The fight in the Mahabharata was not about property rights at all. In fact, Arjuna states that not for the three worlds would he fight, nor for heaven–why then for a kingdom. Krishna tells him that there is only one reason to fight and that is for dharma. That is the same reason Hindus fight–for upholding the dharma. If pluralism is a good , then it is essential that Hinduism survive in this world and is not wiped out by the twin threats of Christianity and Islam. Ultimately, Hindus recognize this as the dharma they seek to protect.
@Khandu. The omnipresence the Christian God is not comparable with Brahman. The reason is that the Christian God is intimately concerned with whether you believe him or not and determines your eternal fate based on that faith. Brahman is totally uninterested in your faith or lack thereof.
Secondly, the omnipresence of the Christian God is more on the lines of a permanent voyeur into the personal lives of his subjects. Brahman is not conceived as a force external to the universe, but the very material cause of the universe–Brahman is the stuff that the universe is made of and nothing has independent existence to it.
@Khandu. Greek civilization, as you refer to, the one that had an empire and gave us the great monuments and architechture and its great philosophy, so longer existes. The ancient Greek civilization is dead and what we now see in Greece is basically the dead monuments of an ancient civilization. Indian however, is still the same living, breathing civilization which can trace its roots to the Indus valley. It really depends on what Hindus want. Do they want to be a continuous civilization, or do they want to lose their Hinduness and become as Greece, with the temples all turned into museums.
It could be argued that the Greek and Roman civilization fell because they lost faith in their gods.
@ Harapriya:
“In fact, Arjuna states that not for the three worlds would he fight, nor for heaven–why then for a kingdom. Krishna tells him that there is only one reason to fight and that is for dharma”
What exactly was the dharmic question here? If not the issue of Yudhistira having been deprived of his rightful share of property?
Thanks
@Patriot. If I remember correctly, Yudhishtra was prepared to settle for a house with five rooms instead of fighting. So he was not really fighting for the Kingdom. The fight was ultimately about fighting against adharma, as was embodied by Duryodhana. Here was a man who knew he cheated his cousins and yet did so without conscience. Here was a man who promised to return the kingdom he had snatched dishonestly if the Pandavas fulfilled the conditions of exile, and yet did not fulfill his promise. Here was a man who molested his cousins’ wife, and tried to repeatedly kill them.
Generally, men who commit such acts, ones motivated by greed alone without conscience are considered adharmic. It was therefore the fight against such an adharmic ruler that the war was fought.
It is also important to note that ancient Hindu culture did not embrace the concept of first born ruling as much as it embraced the idea of rule by the most principled and fit (physically, mentally etc.) That is why Pandu, the younger son ruled and why Yudhishtra was chosen.
Dharma is generally defined as the right conduct–doing the right thing even if it displeases one. The important thing to remember is that what was dharma for Yudhistra was also dharma for Duryodhana. Even the adharmic Duryodhana wanted others to act dhamically and keep their word. That is why Duryodhana accuses Bhima and Krishna of cheating in the final fight.
Today we see the same themes played out. I am reminded of Kasab the terrorist in the Indian courts demanding his rights and getting a lawyer etc.
@Harapriya
You say of the Brahman that he is totally devoid of any human or moral characteristics, a mere physical force. That might serve the purposes of scientific enquiry but is it not the case in Hinduism that the moral code is enforced in the rebirths? One of them has to be right and the other wrong. This is hardly different to the Greeks idea of the material world and the world of their Olympian gods.
String theory has theorized that the known universe (there may be others too) can be explained in the clash of membranes at the point of creation. There is science behind the mathematics which is quite compelling. This is the ultimate reality, the rest is religion. Our universe at the end of its lieftime will dissolve away and everything with it. That is the fate Brahman has for the universe. Our predicaments as a race and people are not similarly placed during the lifetime of this universe.
Actually, at the time when Sanskrit was the language of India, their was coherence which is totally lacking in the India of today. Dharma has given away to licence. I am not persuaded that we are talking about the same India. It is certainly true that many elements of old India has passed into the India of today. Languages, religions, morals have split apart in many directions so much so that India is ungovernable in its present state. Greece made the hard choice to get rid of what it considered outdated religious practices, something to which it was lightly wedded any way. I am not persuaded that Greece lost in anything in do so. Greece led ancient Rome in the arts, learning and culture many aspects of which has resonance in the Western world. Greek power gave way to Rome, which gave way to France, which gave way to America. That is why we call them the Western powers. They are strong and have consciousness of their great beginnings one owing a debt of gratitude to the other. We cannot say that even about one set of our religious books in the Vedas which the Brahmins only want for themselves as their domain.
I have provided the example of how the West have evolved to similar challenges. It makes more sense for Hindu society to make sense of its disordered world in its own way. As its leaders chooses to move only ever so slightly if at all, we should not be surprised when others make the decisions for India as they are indeed being made by the people India has re-elected to power.
@Khandu. Do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that Brahman has no moral characteristics. Brahman is giver of rta–the universal order. He is the creator and the prana or the breath (life force of the creation). Please read the Gita carefully–Krishna explains it much better than I could.
What the Greeks lost ultimately was their religion. Yes they impacted all of Western, in fact all of world civilization; yet they have not managed to survive as a living , continuous culture. What you have essentially is the usurping of their ideas by the Christians. By the way, this is what they are now doing to Hinduism. There is a movement in the south which says that Saiva Siddhanta philosophy was not the product of Hindu thought but of early Christian thought. In the north we are told that the Vedas were created by the Indo Europeans and in the South they had a pre-Christian Christianity. It has gotten so ridiculous, that Universities, including our esteemed Sanskrit college in Chennai invited the Harvard professor who still clings to the Aryan invasion theory, to address us on what the Rig Vedas are.
Check out this article by Radha Rajan.
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=693
Thanks All: I missed this entire conversation since I was traveling over the last 8 days…Will respond by the weekend.
@ Harapriya:
“If I remember correctly, Yudhishtra was prepared to settle for a house with five rooms instead of fighting. So he was not really fighting for the Kingdom. The fight was ultimately about fighting against adharma, as was embodied by Duryodhana. Here was a man who knew he cheated his cousins and yet did so without conscience. Here was a man who promised to return the kingdom he had snatched dishonestly if the Pandavas fulfilled the conditions of exile, and yet did not fulfill his promise. Here was a man who molested his cousins’ wife, and tried to repeatedly kill them.”
Thank you for the above explanation.
My counters:
1. The quarrel between the Pandavas and the Kauravas was that on a personal domain. It was not a state-level matter. There is no record in the Mahabharata of Duryodhana being a poor king or an unjust king. There is no record of Duryodhana or any of his brother having molested any common citizen of hastinapur, male or female.
2. The question of Draupadi is complicated – Yudhistira sold her into slavery. I am not sure what is the status of slaves at the time of Mahabharata, as it does not touch upon this social ethos, but it is probably fair to assume that the master owned the slave bodily?
Panchali, when she is dragged to court, asks a pertinent question – had Yudhistira lost himself first or did he lose me first (this also implies that the husband, if independent, had the right to stake his wife – topic for another discussion, altogether). And, the answer here is that Yudhistira lost himself first, and then Panchali, over whom he longer had any rights.
While Duryodhana was getting ready to strip Draupadi, Bhima (note, not Arjuna) gets up to defend her – Yudhistira stops him. Why?
So, the question of considering just Duryodhana guilty in this episode is excusing Yudhistira AND Bhisma.
3. When Yudhistira says that he is happy with a house with five rooms (guilt complex for gambling away his and his brother’s and their wife’s dignity and modesty?), his brothers oppose him, saying enough is enough and they have to reclaim their rights AND avenge the insult to Draupadi’s modesty. Arjuna and Bhima are ready to flout Yudhistira and go into battle without him, with able incitement from Krishna.
4. Hundreds of innocent people were marched into war, who had no quarrel with Duryodhana and the Kuru family.
So, where is the dharmic question here? This was all about property rights and the revenge of the insult to Draupadi – it was all about personal rights.
BTW, Krishna was quite the Narad Muni in the way he egged on the Pandavas to a fight. I read one interpretation where it said that Krishna had vowed to wipe out the Kuru dynasty for an insult to him.
Cheers
@ Harapriya:
“The sceptism of the Greeks concerned Plato who devloped an idea of a spirtual type of God ”
I am not sure where you get this idea from, but modern Greek Scholars believe that Plato was an agnostic, if not an atheist. As was Socrates his teacher, and Aristotle, his disciple.
Socrates was forced to drink poison because a peer jury of 500 Athenians ruled that his teachings and his philosophy were heresy and for “refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state”.
@Patriot. “the sceptism of the greeks …” I didn’t write that–must have been Khandu.
I think what we have here is a debate over literary style. The conflict in the Mahabharata, which you claim is merely a personal one, is the method the author uses as a metaphor of a larger question of dharma. Dharma is personal–it is the concept of right individual conduct as well as right societal conduct. Protecting oneself aganist aggressors is dharmic. Preventing people from harming our loved ones is also dharmic.
The concept of dharma is intimately linked to human society. The reason humans are concerned with the right action is because they have a choice to do something, not to do it or to do it differently. Animals don’t usually exihibit this. An animal is programmed to act in a specific way.
All literature uses this technique of using personal conflict to illustrate a greater truth.
As an aside, Narada was considered the a catalyst for change. He brought about conflict which led to great transformation–all for good of dharma. Krishna wanting to wipe out the Kuru race is false . It was Parasurama who vowed to do that.
It is important to remember that no one forced Duryodhana to act the way he did. You mention his actions with Draupadi as being justified because he won her. Did he really–does winning by cheating count as a win? Even modern day sports don’t agree with that–otherwise they wouldn’t be dismissing people who take steroids.
So basically you are justifying the actions of a man who won by cheating. Even if people regularly treated slaves badly, Draupadi wasn’t a slave. She was a queen–winning her by foul means doesn’t make her a slave.
Perhaps the example of Bhisma would be illuminating. Here was an righteous man who backed adharma in the form of Duryodhana. He could have stopped the war by refusing to support Duryodhana. It is doubtful if Duryodhana would have gone to war without the support of Bhisma, Drona and Karna. Yet Bhisma’s actions are weak at best.
Yudhistra is also weak, first in gambling and secondly in accepting defeat gotten by cheating –that is why he ends up in the forest for more than a decade. Even a dharmic man who doesn’t fight for it will be punished.
@Patriot
I can assure you that Plato was not an athiest. Central to Plato’s thought is the theory of forms, which holds that there exists a realm of forms, perfect ideals of which things in this world are but imperfect copies. The world that we see around us, according to this theory, is but a pale shadow of the ultimate reality. Things may appear beautiful, or just, insofar as they imitate the forms Beauty and Justice, but the imperfect and changeable world cannot capture the glory of the eternal and immutable forms. He thought in fact God embodied what was perfect. Plato also argued for our immortality, suggesting that we know certain things that we cannot possibly have learned in this life, and that we must therefore be remembering things that we knew previously.
@ Harapriya:
Thanks for your comment.
Some clarifications – I was not supporting or justifying Duryodhana’s action by any means – just pointing out there were equally guilty parties around him, including Yudhistira and Bhisma.
And, isn’t Parsurama an avatar as well?
and, finally, you may want to reconsider this statement:
“She was a queen–winning her by foul means doesn’t make her a slave. ”
What does being a Queen have to do with anything?
Other than that, I am content to let you have the last word ….. you have explained the underlying metaphor beautifully.
Cheers
@ Khandu:
“I can assure you that Plato was not an athiest.”
Please provide some documentary evidence of this.
I speak after having read the Dialogues, where Plato seems to be completely in sync with his master, Socrates. And, the Republic, where he sketches out why he thinks Athenian democracy is bad and who is fit to rule.
Please provide the treatise from which you have drawn your conclusions.
Thanks
@Patriot. Thank you. Spoken like a true gentleman.
There was a code of conduct toward slaves also.
I mentioned Draupadi’s status since the status of a slave determines how badly she can be treated before gaining her freedom (According to book 3 Arthashastra) Generally, the rule is that if one is violent to a slave, that gives her freedom especially if she is high born.
I too have read the Socratic dialogues. In the dialogues which Plato wrote, he has Socrates elaborate on the immortality of the soul. The Greeks Gods of the time were Olympian idolas which the urban Greeks had ceased to believe been. It did not make Plato an athiest as held the beliefs I had described below. If you want documenttary evidence, it can be found in “SO GREAT A MYSTRY” by Kenneth Walker published by Victor Gollancz Londo.
@ Khandu –
Please tell me which section of the Dialogues and I will re-read it. BTW, you are aware that Plato wrote the Dialogues after Socrates had died? Essentially, they are Plato’s dialogues, based on his remembrances of what Socrates used to teach.
Who is Kenneth Walker?
Thanks
The link on the subject in Wikipedia is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue)
I read the books more than 30 years ago.
Kenneth Walker is an author writing in 1958.
@ Khandu –
You have to read the dialogue of Timaeus, in the context of the Apology, and this:
“Socrates (c. 471–399 BCE), was accused of impiety (see Euthyphro dilemma) on the basis that he inspired questioning of the state gods.[72] Although he disputed the accusation that he was a “complete atheist”,[73] saying that he could not be an atheist as he believed in spirits[74], he was ultimately sentenced to death.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
Plato was deeply inspired by Socrates, and a lot of his work is held to be renditions of what Socrates had actually propounded – Even the Republic is based on Socrates’ questioning of Athenian democracy.
and, yes, in 1958 an American author would probably make that claim.
And, you may also want to read this:
“Did he himself have philosophical convictions, and can we discover what they were? Are we justified in speaking of “the philosophy of Platoâ€? Or, if we attribute some view to Plato himself, are we violating the spirit in which he intended the dialogues to be read? Is his whole point, in refraining from addressing his readers as an author of treatises, to discourage them from asking what their author believes and to encourage them instead simply to consider the plausibility or implausibility of what his characters are saying? Is that why Plato wrote dialogues? If not for this reason, then what was his purpose in refraining from addressing his audience in a more direct way? There are other important questions about the particular shape his dialogues take: for example, why does Socrates play such a prominent role in so many of them, and why, in some of these works, does Socrates play a smaller role, or none at all?”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/
Cheers
From the same source (Stanford), the author states this better than I could:
“If we find Timaeus (the principal interlocutor of the dialogue named after him) and the Eleatic visitor of the Sophist and Statesman talking about forms in a way that is entirely consistent with the way Socrates talks about forms in Phaedo and Republic, then there is only one reasonable explanation for that consistency: Plato believes that their way of talking about forms is correct, or is at least strongly supported by powerful considerations. If, on the other hand, we find that Timaeus or the Eleatic visitor talks about forms in a way that does not harmonize with the way Socrates conceives of those abstract objects, in the dialogues that assign him a central role as director of the conversation, then the most plausible explanation for these discrepancies is that Plato has changed his mind about the nature of these entities. It would be implausible to suppose that Plato himself had no convictions about forms, and merely wants to give his readers mental exercise by composing dialogues in which different leading characters talk about these objects in discordant ways.”
@Patriot
The fact is Socrates did not believe in the Greek Olympian gods for which he was put to death. He was given an opportunity to recant but he chose to stick to beliefs in spirits, soul etc which were shared by Plato. It is clear that the Greeks went through similar changes to Hinduism and followed Hindu thought in that respect. The difference is that with them it was either one or the other of the beliefs was true for them not both. There is surely lessons for the religious plauralism of Hinduism. This has been an interesting discussion so far.
Thanks.
@ Jayadevan at 7 above
Quote:
BTW, I am really relieved to know that Veer was Savarkar’s first name. I was slightly worried that it might be a suffix
Unquote
Now we know Ignorance is bliss.
Cheers
Dear All,
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_persecution_in_india.htm
We are lucky that we will be the last generation in India living in a Hindu majority country.
India in 2025 : Hindu – 52%
Christian: 25%
Muslim: 27%
==========================================================
India in 2050
Hindu- 32%
Christian: 35%
Muslim:33%
@ Sathyam: Where did you get these numbers? Can you pl. refer to the source/ any other reference material?