To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I think change occurs when you are left with no choice— for example,the Balance of Payments crisis opened the gates of change for a while, because we had no choice.
Inevitably, our avalanche of problems will forcibly bring about change sooner than later.
During the period of British Rule, what Vivekananda said made eminent sense.
Once independence was achieved, however, we needed a culture of citizenship, which includes active participation in the business of governance of the society. And the idea of removing destitution cannot exist without a deep understanding of how an economy works, and how innovation is generated.
Also, the post-Independence project is is not paternalistic but participative. We must avoid “serving” others for that would mean we are “smarter” than others. Instead, we must work WITH others. The “mai-baap” culture must go. This is the time of equal citizenship.
I’ve explored some of these thoughts further at: http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/12/no-great-nation-can-be-led-by-sacrificial-goats/
In the 21st century I suggest that we must change this message. We need HIGHLY COMPETENT people to enter politics and lead the nation to freedom and good governance.
Regards
Sanjeev
“Sacrifice” is an oxymoron. Giving up “something-1” for “something-2” happens because the “sacrificer” places a greater value on “something-2” in comparison with “something-1”, thereby making a choice of the higher valued “something”. Others may put a different value for the “somethings” involved, because the value systems may differ or they are unaware of all the (perhaps hidden) facts that affect the “sacrificer’s” valuations.
Change can be expected only when there are no available choices to lead a personally satisfying life in our land. When that happens, highly competent people will find it of greater value to fix the system by taking the lead rather than letting things continue to deteriorate.
Everyone seeks to maximise their chances of a good life. Else, human beings would have lost out in the evolution stakes and become extinct long ago.
The idea of “sacrificing” oneself for one’s nation is outdated. It will never work. What we need is a system where each person being selfish will benefit everyone. No one can ask another to give up something for other people unless the net gain to that person is positive.
I kind of agree with Comrade Park. I’ll go ahead and say that nobody really gives up anything unless there’s something in that “sacrifice” for him.
Take Binayak Sen, who is much in the news these days after being convicted by a court for seeking to destroy India as we know it. Leftwing dingbats are screaming bloody murder, and their ridiculous rhetoric is: how can this world’s greatest and most selfless doctor be a criminal? Selfless? What exactly makes a Jesuit dude distributing paracetamol to a few poor people “selfless”? No “selfless” guy strikes alliances with hardened criminals like Narayan Sanyal, who trained under Charu Mazumdar. Fact of the matter is, Catholic evangelism is not “selfless”. Both Christian fundamentalists and leftwing extremists — and their “intersection” as personified by people like Binayak Sen — derive pleasure from their acts of fanaticism and ideological certitude. The Christian fundamentalists believe they are earning a place in heaven, while the Leftwing extremists believe they are making the prophecies of Marx, Mao and Chomsky a reality.
Vivekananda was also being “selfish” in seeking to improve the lot of Indians. However, he went on to become a greatly respected sage because he was neither a fanatic nor an extremist. Selfishness — in the broader sense of the word — is not the problem; intolerance and extremism are.
I was pleasantly surprised to read comments #1-#5. It is absolutely heartening to note that people are moving away from value-virtue-vanity trap and thinking of selfishness as a valid basis.
In a certain context the first statement of the main post “It was in India that unselfish and disinterested work of the most exalted type was preached” must have been absolutely spot on when Swami Vivekanand chose to make it. I believe Indian society was able to achieve a certain advanced stage wherein a significant section of society operated in a selfless manner.
What I am not sure is whether that gave anyone the authority to claim that “but in practice we are awfully cruel, awfully heartless.” As noted by all the commenters above, we must accept the basic human nature and then proceed to examine whether some sections of the society could transcend the selfishness and contribute to the greater good of the society.
The bottom line is this. You cannot demand selfless actions from others, nor can you demand respect or special concessions because you are selfless (that is what the supporters of Dr. Binayak Sen seem to be doing). The guiding principles, for every member of the society, have to be the law, the constitution, and the principles of natural justice.
There is no need to go as far as Swami asked for. If all became honest law abiding citizens condition of destitudes will improve. There is no need to sacrifice. Just do the duty honestly.
The entire idea that one group of people would commit sacrifice and others would reap the benefit is an entirely unrealistic idea. It simply disrupts the equation of stake and responsibility. Everybody must accept their responsibility in maintaining their homes and neighborhood. Granted that some people must step up and organize others but then those people must be accepted as leaders, not some dude whose father has been the minister or MP or head of Municipal corporation.
During childhood days I heard about the stories of how his own organization took the initiative of cleaning the dirty neighborhoods of Calcutta. One would find that he asked his mission to clean it every day but never asked the inhabitants of the neighborhood to take an initiative to clean it up. That was the failure of his own movement.
The message of swami is very relevant in today’s context. One of the highest virtue in the Indian tradition is sacrifice and selflessness. It is such act by Ghandiji and many others that got the nation freedom.
Today the challenges that we face are in the social level therefore it will take many good-willed people to sacrifice at least 20% of their time and effort towards the well-being of others, only then the real transformation can be seen.
The idea of sacrifice here merely implies:
1) Commitment
2) One-pointedness (or concentration)
Neither of these is outdated; it is in fact the core principle.
Sacrifice can never be an outdated phenomenon. It is very much an integral part of Sanatan Dharma which is eternal.
Sacrificial actions involve taking up something ‘higher’ which results in giving up something ‘lower’. One does it based on his inspiration and conviction rather personal likes and dislikes.
It is individual-specific. Hence selfish and unselfish are relative terms. What is considered sacrifice w.r.t. one may not be for other.
I understand sacrifice as devoting oneself to an ideal bigger than one’s limited self-interest. How can it be outdated?
Mere selfishness,however ‘exalted, only gives rise to a self-centered and self serving people. That is what is happening today.
Sacrifice can be at many levels. Everybody might not have the guts, or the circumstances, or the ‘maturity’ to sacrifice at an exalted level. For one it might be sacrificing self-interest to live a law-abiding life, maybe at a lower level of prosperity.
For another sacrifice might mean not being able to rise up the corporate ladder as far as his other, ‘smarter’, colleagues.
For yet another one, it might be sacrificing the comforts of life to make for a better India.
How is it outdated? That is how great nations are born!
The argument in these articles/comments — about whether something is selfishness or a sacrifice or somewhere in between — is really irrelevant and a distraction. Write about what needs to be done – by how many people – and how exactly — and try to mobilize people as such. Why waste time by getting to endless arguments – which we Indians seem to be quite good at 🙂 – about semitics!!
@Shanthala
This is not an irrelevant topic. It makes the difference between a society that values ‘values’ and the one that doesn’t.
It is true that with growing commercialization, ‘values’ seem to have lost their gloss; people don’t have the luxury to bother about them; when life is so bloody fast, that it sucks all the blood out of you.
Come to think of it, isn’t this non-chalant and chalta hai attitude the one that has taken Indian society to such low levels in Public life?
Morality matters. A lot.
When everybody is busy filling his coffers – who bothers about ‘values’? That is why it seems out-dated and irrelevant!
#13 and 14. Values can be discussed for ages. It feels good. It is the supreme form of chalta hai attitude. Write a few pure words about purity and feel good. You can even say that others have a chalta hai attitude. After all, you aren’t being selfish when you say that. You are only showing your genuine concern for the society. So good. So nice. So virtuous. So vain.
If the East India company had heard some discourse on Morality, they would never have offended India. Morality matters, you see. If only Huns and other tribes had learnt about morality, they would never have attacked the civilisation down south. Morality matters, you see.
According to the Hindu scriptures three specific characters can be identified. That is Deva Guna, Manidha Guna & Asura Guna. Deva Guna means people don’t keep anything for themselves and survive for the well being of others. Manidha Guna means people they keep essential things for themselves and spare the excess for the others. Asura Guna means people they keep everything for themselves only. Once Bharatam was 100% full of Deva Guna inhabitant. Due to invasion of Asura religion slowly Indian character got contaminated and polluted and nowadays it is difficult to find people with Deva Guna. Human race is still existing because of 75% of people possess Manidha Guna and the frequent conflicts are due to the presence of religious fanatics (particularly Islam – direct Asura and Missionaries – Asura in the Manidha cover & dirty politicians – parasites of society etc.,)
I am surprised at the response of some of readers , this is the attitude which congress has developed through its education system , here is a country which spends thousands of crores for games like CWG , while many people are living by begging , characterless politicians , and people who have lost sympathy for there countrymen ,they think “gandhi Nehru “(who were politicians only but congress made them popular ) as there ideals, and being a Hindu supporter as “fanatic ” while anti national elements are gaining support day by day by media and politicians , what surprise if india again becomes divided ,
When Hindues will realize their unity , and will realize why they are infinite times better than anyone else , will give up the caste based discrimination and will unite as “Hindus ” ( because Hinduism is essence of india ) then only India will be strengthened , that’s what Swami Vivekananda wanted .
Swami Vivekananda was the first person who took the ancient Vedanta philosophy of India to the masses. The fact that we are immortal beings, a reflection of the divine spirit, with infinite capabilities, were ideas which were lost to us for many centuries. India, as a result, had been mired in superstitions, rituals and customs; scared, slavish and totally unaware of its true potential. Today, India has become better placed materially, but the spiritual ignorance persists. Educated Indians like to flaunt westernized notions of “greed” and “selfishness”, without really understanding how these ideas take the entire world towards depravity. The idea of “sacrifice” is deeply rooted in most of the ancient philosophies. Any act of sacrifice, however small, restores the balance in a world that is dominated by selfish thinking. Swami Vivekananda rightly understood the situation, which is why he said that we need “hundreds of large-hearted men and women” and not “millions”. The act of sacrifice is charged with so much spiritual power, that even a few hundred people like Swami Vivekananda, practicing it with purpose and commitment, will be sufficient to tilt the scales of humanity in favour of peace, prosperity and harmony.
What the great saint preached……..Silently and efficiently many people and organisations ate doing it around the world. I visited a few days ago a small town in Southern India, called ULUNDURPET, that was a life changing experience for me. Sharada Ashram run by swaminis or ammas has transfonred the p,ace running schools, Drop zout boys school, Teachers Training college, Old women home, a larger womens college in town. u believable good work. I felt humbled by what they do in a humble manner.