R K Pachauri, Ph.D
Director-General, TERI
India is at a stage when it must make some critical choices. The easiest choice would be to follow the example of the developed world and to proceed on a path of increasing consumerism without due regard to impacts on the environment and the good health and conservation of the country’s natural resources. This would prove disastrous in the long run and would lead to major inequities in income and wealth distribution. It would also lead to degradation of the country’s ecosystem and natural resources with harmful consequences for the economy and for Indian society as a whole. Such a path would also add to the problem of climate change that the world has now to deal with on an urgent and serious basis.
The other choice, which is undoubtedly superior and would have major consequences for the world and all of humanity, is to ensure that our laws, regulatory institutions and practices as well as human behaviour uphold the primacy of nature as an important determinant of human welfare. The world is in urgent need for a different model of development that is truly sustainable. It is for a country like India to establish a path that creates such a model. We have to use our intrinsic belief, traditions and values to move towards such a model. Then only would the world see the merit of such action and emulate us for the benefit of all mankind and other living species on this planet."
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Sunday, August 10, 2008
British Caste-System
Edward Hamala
http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/militants-set-france-ablaze/
In response to the letter by Roger Williams captioned "The Rig Veda does refer to caste" (07.07.23) I thought I might share a few points with your readers. The Indian "caste system" that has so outraged Mr. Roger Williams, makes me wonder if he is equally outraged by the British "caste system" that is even more prevalent, although it is well hidden and "invisible" in the British and some European societies, where the nobility still exist, than it is in India today, where all noble titles have been abolished.
I would like to ask Mr. Williams when objecting to birthrights why has he failed to raise the same objection to the British Nobility and the Landed Gentry's birthright, inheriting their title, social status while they are also guaranteed perpetual political power by inheriting a peer-ship and a seat in the British House of Lords, the highest legislative body of the land?
Few of us believe the existence of a truly egalitarian society in the west today or anywhere for that matter!When was the last time that Mr. Williams had a drink at the local pub with Lord Spencer? Or had tea with Prince Phillip?
Did you know that the English nobility are distinctly noticeable by their education and grooming in institutions such as Wetherby, Ludgrove, and Eton or the Royal Academy at Sandhurst? They even speak a different language, the King's English, free from colloquialism and dialects distinctly separating them, and distinguishing them from ordinary commoners, as soon as they open their mouths. May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them.The word "caste" my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for "caste" is "Varna" and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean "caste" as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!Likewise, "untouchable" meant not to go near them, don't touch them, don't intermarry with them and don't corrupt their culture don't try to conform them. Leave them alone!The unfortunate thing was that Mahatma Gandhi was also British educated, trained as a lawyer and had little or no knowledge about the ancient Vedic philosophy, history or culture. What little Gandhi knew about Vedic philosophy was mostly thought to him by Vinoba Bhave, an avid freedom fighter, a devoted supporter of the Mahatma who was a Hindu monk and a highly educated Brahman who among other things spoke 14 languages.It was Vinoba Bhave who connected Gandhi's political views with Vedic values and philosophy that gained such a wide appeal and the support of the Indian masses. If Gandhi would have had a better grasp of Vedic Philosophy he would have been able to counter many of these British myths and instead of being an apologist he could have challenged and defeated the British, the most classist society, at their own game.Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, "uncivilized" and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as "untouchables" or is it done to protect them?The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.
Westerners can't seem to resist the temptation of trying to impose their political and social values and religions on other cultures!How many societies does Mr. Williams know, where a group of refugees arrived and sought refuge as the Jews did in Kerala, India in 70 AD and were given sanctuary and freedom to practice their religion. This community lived and prospered in India without anyone trying to convert them and many returned to their homeland when the State of Israel was created!The same holds true for the Parsi refugees arriving from Persia when the forceful Muslim conversion was taking place there and they are still practicing their own ancient religion as Zoroastrians and no one tried to convert them.Recently, a large number of Tibetians arrived in India along with the Dalai Lama and they were all received graciously and were given sanctuary.I suggest Mr. Williams should ask the Australian aboriginals or the American Indians if they would prefer to be untouched by their foreign invaders or if they preferred to be forced to conform to an alien culture that was imposed on them, by forcefully removing their children to place them into Christian institutions where violence and sexual abuse was rampant.It has destroyed their self esteem, traditions and culture. The Eastern Indian social structure was designed that different castes served each other, each with a distinct duty to perform for the benefit of the whole of society.It was a farmer's duty to teach his son to be a good farmer and the merchant's to teach his son his craft, while the warrior was trained to be the protector and defender of all………..It is also noteworthy that governance was the duty of the Kshatryas not to rule by whims and despotism as it was the rulers privilege in the "civilized west" but to rule in accordance with the Vedic principles.
Yet the highest caste, above them all was not the Kings who were given the highest social position. It was the Brahmans who were the custodians of all the Vedic Sciences and knowledge and their duty was to teach and to preserve the knowledge of Vedas.The teachers, the priests, the doctors, the scientists and philosophers the poets and the writers were all Brahmans whose duty also included giving moral guidance to the Kings! It is simplistic to believe that a farmer or a potter would be capable to teach their children nuclear science or medicine or the Vedas!This educational system assured the proper training and apprenticeship of all with a life time of gainful employment for all the participants.
This, Mr. Williams, has established an interesting value system in India, alien to the west! The most valuable asset was not money or power as it is today in the western value system! It was knowledge and wisdom that took decades to learn and a life time to acquire! And it was the society's duty to support the Brahmans to afford their study providing food, clothing and shelter to them.
I am sure Mr. Williams is familiar with the existence of the "unwashed" wretched underclass in Dickens's Britain or Victor Hugo's France as it did exist in most of Europe……… Well, such a thing did not exist in India and these facts are well documented by historians all the way back to Alexander the Great's visit to India and was minutely recorded by Greek Historians such as Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Strabo, accompanying Alexander. One thing these historians also commented on, was the absence of slavery that was an integral part of Hellenic culture!
Today, most Indians are alienated and mostly ignorant about their culture, the Vedas and their history, and few understand the Vedic philosophy or its teachings or the highly advanced science it encompasses. They know little else about Hinduism, besides the ritualistic traditions. This Vedic social structure was put in place at the time when in the rest of the world slavery was rampant and pivotal to every European Empire!Don't forget slavery was widely practiced in the United States until the Civil War to the 1860's and desegregation only started in the 1960's and the prejudices still exist until today.
http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/militants-set-france-ablaze/
In response to the letter by Roger Williams captioned "The Rig Veda does refer to caste" (07.07.23) I thought I might share a few points with your readers. The Indian "caste system" that has so outraged Mr. Roger Williams, makes me wonder if he is equally outraged by the British "caste system" that is even more prevalent, although it is well hidden and "invisible" in the British and some European societies, where the nobility still exist, than it is in India today, where all noble titles have been abolished.
I would like to ask Mr. Williams when objecting to birthrights why has he failed to raise the same objection to the British Nobility and the Landed Gentry's birthright, inheriting their title, social status while they are also guaranteed perpetual political power by inheriting a peer-ship and a seat in the British House of Lords, the highest legislative body of the land?
Few of us believe the existence of a truly egalitarian society in the west today or anywhere for that matter!When was the last time that Mr. Williams had a drink at the local pub with Lord Spencer? Or had tea with Prince Phillip?
Did you know that the English nobility are distinctly noticeable by their education and grooming in institutions such as Wetherby, Ludgrove, and Eton or the Royal Academy at Sandhurst? They even speak a different language, the King's English, free from colloquialism and dialects distinctly separating them, and distinguishing them from ordinary commoners, as soon as they open their mouths. May I also remind you that the Indian Social Structure as it was depicted in the Vedas Millenniums ago, made it an edict to leave Tribals and Adivasis alone and not to impose Hindu religion, culture or values on them.The word "caste" my friend is an English word! The Sanskrit word for "caste" is "Varna" and it means vocation or occupation and does not mean "caste" as it does in the English interpretation or translation of the term!Likewise, "untouchable" meant not to go near them, don't touch them, don't intermarry with them and don't corrupt their culture don't try to conform them. Leave them alone!The unfortunate thing was that Mahatma Gandhi was also British educated, trained as a lawyer and had little or no knowledge about the ancient Vedic philosophy, history or culture. What little Gandhi knew about Vedic philosophy was mostly thought to him by Vinoba Bhave, an avid freedom fighter, a devoted supporter of the Mahatma who was a Hindu monk and a highly educated Brahman who among other things spoke 14 languages.It was Vinoba Bhave who connected Gandhi's political views with Vedic values and philosophy that gained such a wide appeal and the support of the Indian masses. If Gandhi would have had a better grasp of Vedic Philosophy he would have been able to counter many of these British myths and instead of being an apologist he could have challenged and defeated the British, the most classist society, at their own game.Let me ask you, Mr. Williams, what modern country that you know of today still have primitive tribals living undisturbed, "uncivilized" and untouched by their society living around them? As they do in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India? Did you know that these islands are off limits to all Indian citizens, to protect these tribals?Is it done to discriminate against the tribals as "untouchables" or is it done to protect them?The State of Assam, was a similar tribal area until it got overran by zealous Christian Missionaries that have destroyed their social fibre and their culture.
Westerners can't seem to resist the temptation of trying to impose their political and social values and religions on other cultures!How many societies does Mr. Williams know, where a group of refugees arrived and sought refuge as the Jews did in Kerala, India in 70 AD and were given sanctuary and freedom to practice their religion. This community lived and prospered in India without anyone trying to convert them and many returned to their homeland when the State of Israel was created!The same holds true for the Parsi refugees arriving from Persia when the forceful Muslim conversion was taking place there and they are still practicing their own ancient religion as Zoroastrians and no one tried to convert them.Recently, a large number of Tibetians arrived in India along with the Dalai Lama and they were all received graciously and were given sanctuary.I suggest Mr. Williams should ask the Australian aboriginals or the American Indians if they would prefer to be untouched by their foreign invaders or if they preferred to be forced to conform to an alien culture that was imposed on them, by forcefully removing their children to place them into Christian institutions where violence and sexual abuse was rampant.It has destroyed their self esteem, traditions and culture. The Eastern Indian social structure was designed that different castes served each other, each with a distinct duty to perform for the benefit of the whole of society.It was a farmer's duty to teach his son to be a good farmer and the merchant's to teach his son his craft, while the warrior was trained to be the protector and defender of all………..It is also noteworthy that governance was the duty of the Kshatryas not to rule by whims and despotism as it was the rulers privilege in the "civilized west" but to rule in accordance with the Vedic principles.
Yet the highest caste, above them all was not the Kings who were given the highest social position. It was the Brahmans who were the custodians of all the Vedic Sciences and knowledge and their duty was to teach and to preserve the knowledge of Vedas.The teachers, the priests, the doctors, the scientists and philosophers the poets and the writers were all Brahmans whose duty also included giving moral guidance to the Kings! It is simplistic to believe that a farmer or a potter would be capable to teach their children nuclear science or medicine or the Vedas!This educational system assured the proper training and apprenticeship of all with a life time of gainful employment for all the participants.
This, Mr. Williams, has established an interesting value system in India, alien to the west! The most valuable asset was not money or power as it is today in the western value system! It was knowledge and wisdom that took decades to learn and a life time to acquire! And it was the society's duty to support the Brahmans to afford their study providing food, clothing and shelter to them.
I am sure Mr. Williams is familiar with the existence of the "unwashed" wretched underclass in Dickens's Britain or Victor Hugo's France as it did exist in most of Europe……… Well, such a thing did not exist in India and these facts are well documented by historians all the way back to Alexander the Great's visit to India and was minutely recorded by Greek Historians such as Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Strabo, accompanying Alexander. One thing these historians also commented on, was the absence of slavery that was an integral part of Hellenic culture!
Today, most Indians are alienated and mostly ignorant about their culture, the Vedas and their history, and few understand the Vedic philosophy or its teachings or the highly advanced science it encompasses. They know little else about Hinduism, besides the ritualistic traditions. This Vedic social structure was put in place at the time when in the rest of the world slavery was rampant and pivotal to every European Empire!Don't forget slavery was widely practiced in the United States until the Civil War to the 1860's and desegregation only started in the 1960's and the prejudices still exist until today.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Hindu-Hindutva-Hinduism
Original text can be found at http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-i-am-proud-to-be-hindu.html
I am proud to be a Hindu not because Hinduism claims that it is in any way better than any other religion. Nor does this pride I feel in being a Hindu arise from a feeling of being ‘holier’ than a non-believer. I am proud to be a Hindu because it is characteristically inclusive, liberal, pragmatic, egalitarian and individualistic. In a way it is not even a ‘religion’ in a stricter-sense, since it does not have a hierarchical structure of command-and-control. Neither does it have an office of the Pope, nor does it have a single Pan-Hindu scripture. It is rather an age-defying “way of life”—the ‘sanatana dharma’—which has been readily and generously welcoming, like an ocean, every stream of thought, into its organic whole, over several millennia.Hindutva never talks of kafirs and ‘infidels’ to inject xenophobic fervour, or missionary zeal into its believers. Hindutva is rather a spiritual and socio-cultural umbrella which accepts, and happily so, even its staunchest critics as part of its larger whole. So inclusive is this way of life that Buddha who used to be an ardent critic of prevalent Hinduism of his times, instead of being silenced, or being targeted by any fatwa or being burnt at stake, was Himself embraced as an avatara i.e. incarnation of Vishnu. Consequently Buddhist along with Jain teachings got assimilated into the then prevalent Brahmanical and Vedic Hinduism to bring out the later version of Vedantic Hinduism comprising of Upanishads, Puranas and the great Bhagwad Gita.This pragmatic and liberalistic attitude of Hindutva, is seen at its best in the Bhagwad Gita, where in the final Eighteenth Chapter, after all the prolonged and persuasive discourse, Krishna tells to Arjuna:
“Iti te jnanamakhyatam guhyaatguhyataram mayaVimrishyaitadasheshena yathaichhasi tathaa kuru.”(Hereby I have imparted to you the most secret and sacred of wisdom. Nevertheless you can apply your judiciousness of mind and then do whatever you wish to.)
Perhaps this degree of individualism, through openness and freedom given to the individual to choose his manner of living cannot be seen in any other religion, and for this very reason
Hinduism is more of a “way of life” than a mere institutionalised religious entity. Bhagwad Gita amply professes this concept of individualism as opposed to a codified and institutionalised religious system.
“Uddharedatmanaatmanamaatmanam avasadhayetAatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuaatmaiva ripuraatmana.”(It is the Self that could elevate the Self, and it is the Self that could denigrate the Self. The Self itself is its own greatest friend; the Self itself is its own greatest enemy)
When Swami Vivekananda quoted the great Sanskrit shloka in the World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, he underlined this great appreciation of Hindutva that all paths ultimately lead to the ‘One’.
“Aakashaat patitam toyam yathagacchati sagaramSarva deva namaskaaramkeshavam prati gachhatii.”(Just as rainwater falling from the sky takes different routes and channels but ultimately end up in the one same ocean, prayers directed at any god ultimately reaches that ‘One’ god.)
When Dr K.M. Munshi selected the great Vedic aphorism as motto of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan he wanted to specifically highlight this inclusivism of Hindutva.
“Aa no bhadra kritavo yantuvishwata.”(Let noble thoughts come from all corners of this universe and fill my mind.)
And no religious discourse on Hindutva is complete without the much talked about shloka which hails the whole world as one single family.
“Ayam nijah paro vetti gananalaghu chetasaamUdaara charitanam tuvasudhaivakutumbakam.”(‘This is ours’; ‘that is other’s’ is being perceived by the narrow-minded. The magnanimous always sees this whole universe as one single family.)
We should now conjoin this lofty vision of ‘sanatana dharma’ into the geographical concept of Bharatvarsha as elucidated in Vishnu Purana.
“Uttaram yad samudrasyaHimadrischaiva dakshinamVarshtad Bharatam namaBharati yatra santati.”(That which is north of ocean and south of Himalayan ranges is the Bharatvarsha, and the progeny of this place are Bharatiya.)Here is a text that tells us of a geographical-identity devoid of any sectarian or religious differentiation. All people born and brought up in this Bharatvarsha are Bharatiya. We have to emphasise this identity of ‘Bharatiya’ as paramount to all others; and that the pronounced silence over any other religious or sectarian references is singularly because of Hindutva influence on the concept of Bharatiyata.‘Bharatiyata’ can be a more acceptable euphemism for ‘Hindutva’. Even while emphatically stating that one need not be least apologetic of calling oneself a Hindutva ideologist. But each time we try to point out that Hindutva is not just a religion or an exclusive sect but rather a “way of life”, the loud cries of “secular” brigade silences this point and prevents it from penetrating the masses. To get across to the larger public who hardly bothers to go deep into the semantics of this dialectic, and to bring to our fold the fence-sitters who wish to ‘appear’ more ‘secular’ than they actually are, we should propagate the concept of Bharatiyata as a Pan-Indian ideological furtherance of Hindutva.
The Hindu ideology of universal egalitarianism i.e. belief in inherent equality of all creations, leave aside merely amongst human beings, is put at its best in ‘Gita’.
“Vidya vinaya sampanne brahmanegavi hastiniiShuni chaiva shwa-pakechapanditaan sama-darshina.”(One who is ennobled by humility of real knowledge would see inherent one-ness in a Brahmin, cow, elephant, dog and a dog-eater.)There is a famous anecdote centering around Shankara’s life. Once when Shankara was going along the street with his pupils to take bath in the Ganga, he met a Chandala who was also passing along the street with his dogs by his side. The disciples of Shankara shouted and asked the Chandala to clear off the road. The Chandala asked Shankara: “O, Venerable Guru! You are a preacher of Advaita Vedanta and yet you make a great difference between man and man. How can this be consistent with your teaching of Advaitism? Is Advaita only a theory?” Shankara was very much struck by the intelligent query of the Chandala. He thought within himself, “Lord Shiva has assumed this form just to teach me a lesson”. He composed then and there five shlokas called the ‘Manisha Panchaka’. Every shloka ends thus: “He who learnt to look on the phenomena in the light of Advaita is my true Guru, be he a Chandala or be he a Brahmin”.
A major perversion of Hinduism owing to historical or socio-religious interpretations of scriptures, and deviant behaviour of certain followers, led to intra-Hindu classifications and discrimination on the basis of caste. Attempts were made to establish Brahmanical hegemony claiming scriptural legitimacy. It has to be clearly stated that scriptural concepts on varna and jati were more as mobilisation of cadre of common-professions based on inherent skills, inclinations and activities. Bhagwad Gita talks about ‘varna’ differentiation based on guna (inherent inclinations) and karma (activities).
“Chatur varnam maya sristumguna-karma vibhagasha.”(The four varnas are made by Me, differentiated on guna and karma.)
It should be clearly noted that it begins with guna and ends with karma and never was it envisaged based on janma. In other words, varna was not supposed to be acquired hereditarily.Equally important to state is that varna was a horizontal cadre-differentiation and not vertical classification, as it is often made to be shown. Inter-varna marriages were very common but its differentiation as anuloma and pratiloma was a later interpolation which wrongfully picturised varna as vertical classification. A sizeable number of Deities and heroes of ‘puranas’ and ‘itihasas’ are products of inter-varna marriage, or from non-Brahmin-Kshatriya varnas.
Purusa Sukta in the Rig Veda talks of Brahmins emerging from the face and Shudras emerging out of the feet of the Almighty and this is used by many as a scriptural justification of vertical classification. But this theory innocuously presumes that ‘head is holier than the feet’, which is a very misleading and incorrect premise. Perhaps the contrary can be argued more convincingly. And what is more important to note is that all are shown to be originating out of the same Almighty. I feel very ashamed and sad to see how the lofty Hindu ideal of universal equality has been misrepresented to legitimise and perpetuate caste-discrimination amongst the Hindus.For those ships lost in the turmoil of life, Hindutva acts as a spiritual light-house, the light-house that guides and offers direction, silently and ceaselessly, without the least expecting any ship to come over and anchor at the light-house. It rather assists them in reaching their own destinations.
Interestingly the very term ‘Bharat’ means “one which is seized with and immersed in light”.Hindutva does not talk of its followers as superior in any way compared to its non-followers. What it stands for is according to Vivekananda “to make Hindu a better Hindu, Christian a better Christian and Muslim a better Muslim”. Religious bigotry, parochialism and xenophobia can never be part of Hindutva. And the very idea of ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ is a crude misnomer and inherently self-contradictory since a true Hindu cannot be a fundamentalist and a fundamentalist can never claim to be a true Hindu. And Bharatiyata is the carrier of this message, a living and vibrant Pan-Indian embodiment of Hindutva openness and reverence for the other.
Some people naively observe that Hindus are very tolerant. This is wrong. Tolerance means accepting the other person though you believe that he is wrong. Hindus believe that the ‘other’ is as much right as you are, and hence they are ‘understanding’, and not just ‘tolerant’. And the perversions and anomalies of other religions manifested at the social level are more out of misinterpretations of, and deviations from the core philosophy. At the foundation of Bharatiyata is this underlying respect for the ‘other’, the ideal of sarvadharmasamabhava. Bharatiyata that talks of vasudhaivakutumbakam—the whole world as one single family. Bharatiyata that prays for loka samasta sukhino bhavantu—welfare of the entire world.To respect others one has to learn to respect oneself first. Any feeling of mutual respect cannot be true and sustainable until that feeling sprout out of abundant self-respect. Otherwise a sense of insecurity would hinder true and boundless respect for the ‘other’.
While Hindutva should always be open to any criticism or correction or reformation, it should not end up being apologetic or defeatist, in front of its detractors. India is a secular country only, and only, because Hinduism is essentially secular. If ‘secularism’ is interpreted and practised as Anti-Hinduism, or forcefully pro-active minorityism to the extent of repeated Hindu-bashing, any self-respecting Hindu should stand up,and uphold his swaabhiman and Atma-gaurav.And that is why I wish to stand up and proclaim to the whole world: I am proud to be a Hindu!!!
I am proud to be a Hindu not because Hinduism claims that it is in any way better than any other religion. Nor does this pride I feel in being a Hindu arise from a feeling of being ‘holier’ than a non-believer. I am proud to be a Hindu because it is characteristically inclusive, liberal, pragmatic, egalitarian and individualistic. In a way it is not even a ‘religion’ in a stricter-sense, since it does not have a hierarchical structure of command-and-control. Neither does it have an office of the Pope, nor does it have a single Pan-Hindu scripture. It is rather an age-defying “way of life”—the ‘sanatana dharma’—which has been readily and generously welcoming, like an ocean, every stream of thought, into its organic whole, over several millennia.Hindutva never talks of kafirs and ‘infidels’ to inject xenophobic fervour, or missionary zeal into its believers. Hindutva is rather a spiritual and socio-cultural umbrella which accepts, and happily so, even its staunchest critics as part of its larger whole. So inclusive is this way of life that Buddha who used to be an ardent critic of prevalent Hinduism of his times, instead of being silenced, or being targeted by any fatwa or being burnt at stake, was Himself embraced as an avatara i.e. incarnation of Vishnu. Consequently Buddhist along with Jain teachings got assimilated into the then prevalent Brahmanical and Vedic Hinduism to bring out the later version of Vedantic Hinduism comprising of Upanishads, Puranas and the great Bhagwad Gita.This pragmatic and liberalistic attitude of Hindutva, is seen at its best in the Bhagwad Gita, where in the final Eighteenth Chapter, after all the prolonged and persuasive discourse, Krishna tells to Arjuna:
“Iti te jnanamakhyatam guhyaatguhyataram mayaVimrishyaitadasheshena yathaichhasi tathaa kuru.”(Hereby I have imparted to you the most secret and sacred of wisdom. Nevertheless you can apply your judiciousness of mind and then do whatever you wish to.)
Perhaps this degree of individualism, through openness and freedom given to the individual to choose his manner of living cannot be seen in any other religion, and for this very reason
Hinduism is more of a “way of life” than a mere institutionalised religious entity. Bhagwad Gita amply professes this concept of individualism as opposed to a codified and institutionalised religious system.
“Uddharedatmanaatmanamaatmanam avasadhayetAatmaiva hyaatmano bandhuaatmaiva ripuraatmana.”(It is the Self that could elevate the Self, and it is the Self that could denigrate the Self. The Self itself is its own greatest friend; the Self itself is its own greatest enemy)
When Swami Vivekananda quoted the great Sanskrit shloka in the World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, he underlined this great appreciation of Hindutva that all paths ultimately lead to the ‘One’.
“Aakashaat patitam toyam yathagacchati sagaramSarva deva namaskaaramkeshavam prati gachhatii.”(Just as rainwater falling from the sky takes different routes and channels but ultimately end up in the one same ocean, prayers directed at any god ultimately reaches that ‘One’ god.)
When Dr K.M. Munshi selected the great Vedic aphorism as motto of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan he wanted to specifically highlight this inclusivism of Hindutva.
“Aa no bhadra kritavo yantuvishwata.”(Let noble thoughts come from all corners of this universe and fill my mind.)
And no religious discourse on Hindutva is complete without the much talked about shloka which hails the whole world as one single family.
“Ayam nijah paro vetti gananalaghu chetasaamUdaara charitanam tuvasudhaivakutumbakam.”(‘This is ours’; ‘that is other’s’ is being perceived by the narrow-minded. The magnanimous always sees this whole universe as one single family.)
We should now conjoin this lofty vision of ‘sanatana dharma’ into the geographical concept of Bharatvarsha as elucidated in Vishnu Purana.
“Uttaram yad samudrasyaHimadrischaiva dakshinamVarshtad Bharatam namaBharati yatra santati.”(That which is north of ocean and south of Himalayan ranges is the Bharatvarsha, and the progeny of this place are Bharatiya.)Here is a text that tells us of a geographical-identity devoid of any sectarian or religious differentiation. All people born and brought up in this Bharatvarsha are Bharatiya. We have to emphasise this identity of ‘Bharatiya’ as paramount to all others; and that the pronounced silence over any other religious or sectarian references is singularly because of Hindutva influence on the concept of Bharatiyata.‘Bharatiyata’ can be a more acceptable euphemism for ‘Hindutva’. Even while emphatically stating that one need not be least apologetic of calling oneself a Hindutva ideologist. But each time we try to point out that Hindutva is not just a religion or an exclusive sect but rather a “way of life”, the loud cries of “secular” brigade silences this point and prevents it from penetrating the masses. To get across to the larger public who hardly bothers to go deep into the semantics of this dialectic, and to bring to our fold the fence-sitters who wish to ‘appear’ more ‘secular’ than they actually are, we should propagate the concept of Bharatiyata as a Pan-Indian ideological furtherance of Hindutva.
The Hindu ideology of universal egalitarianism i.e. belief in inherent equality of all creations, leave aside merely amongst human beings, is put at its best in ‘Gita’.
“Vidya vinaya sampanne brahmanegavi hastiniiShuni chaiva shwa-pakechapanditaan sama-darshina.”(One who is ennobled by humility of real knowledge would see inherent one-ness in a Brahmin, cow, elephant, dog and a dog-eater.)There is a famous anecdote centering around Shankara’s life. Once when Shankara was going along the street with his pupils to take bath in the Ganga, he met a Chandala who was also passing along the street with his dogs by his side. The disciples of Shankara shouted and asked the Chandala to clear off the road. The Chandala asked Shankara: “O, Venerable Guru! You are a preacher of Advaita Vedanta and yet you make a great difference between man and man. How can this be consistent with your teaching of Advaitism? Is Advaita only a theory?” Shankara was very much struck by the intelligent query of the Chandala. He thought within himself, “Lord Shiva has assumed this form just to teach me a lesson”. He composed then and there five shlokas called the ‘Manisha Panchaka’. Every shloka ends thus: “He who learnt to look on the phenomena in the light of Advaita is my true Guru, be he a Chandala or be he a Brahmin”.
A major perversion of Hinduism owing to historical or socio-religious interpretations of scriptures, and deviant behaviour of certain followers, led to intra-Hindu classifications and discrimination on the basis of caste. Attempts were made to establish Brahmanical hegemony claiming scriptural legitimacy. It has to be clearly stated that scriptural concepts on varna and jati were more as mobilisation of cadre of common-professions based on inherent skills, inclinations and activities. Bhagwad Gita talks about ‘varna’ differentiation based on guna (inherent inclinations) and karma (activities).
“Chatur varnam maya sristumguna-karma vibhagasha.”(The four varnas are made by Me, differentiated on guna and karma.)
It should be clearly noted that it begins with guna and ends with karma and never was it envisaged based on janma. In other words, varna was not supposed to be acquired hereditarily.Equally important to state is that varna was a horizontal cadre-differentiation and not vertical classification, as it is often made to be shown. Inter-varna marriages were very common but its differentiation as anuloma and pratiloma was a later interpolation which wrongfully picturised varna as vertical classification. A sizeable number of Deities and heroes of ‘puranas’ and ‘itihasas’ are products of inter-varna marriage, or from non-Brahmin-Kshatriya varnas.
Purusa Sukta in the Rig Veda talks of Brahmins emerging from the face and Shudras emerging out of the feet of the Almighty and this is used by many as a scriptural justification of vertical classification. But this theory innocuously presumes that ‘head is holier than the feet’, which is a very misleading and incorrect premise. Perhaps the contrary can be argued more convincingly. And what is more important to note is that all are shown to be originating out of the same Almighty. I feel very ashamed and sad to see how the lofty Hindu ideal of universal equality has been misrepresented to legitimise and perpetuate caste-discrimination amongst the Hindus.For those ships lost in the turmoil of life, Hindutva acts as a spiritual light-house, the light-house that guides and offers direction, silently and ceaselessly, without the least expecting any ship to come over and anchor at the light-house. It rather assists them in reaching their own destinations.
Interestingly the very term ‘Bharat’ means “one which is seized with and immersed in light”.Hindutva does not talk of its followers as superior in any way compared to its non-followers. What it stands for is according to Vivekananda “to make Hindu a better Hindu, Christian a better Christian and Muslim a better Muslim”. Religious bigotry, parochialism and xenophobia can never be part of Hindutva. And the very idea of ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ is a crude misnomer and inherently self-contradictory since a true Hindu cannot be a fundamentalist and a fundamentalist can never claim to be a true Hindu. And Bharatiyata is the carrier of this message, a living and vibrant Pan-Indian embodiment of Hindutva openness and reverence for the other.
Some people naively observe that Hindus are very tolerant. This is wrong. Tolerance means accepting the other person though you believe that he is wrong. Hindus believe that the ‘other’ is as much right as you are, and hence they are ‘understanding’, and not just ‘tolerant’. And the perversions and anomalies of other religions manifested at the social level are more out of misinterpretations of, and deviations from the core philosophy. At the foundation of Bharatiyata is this underlying respect for the ‘other’, the ideal of sarvadharmasamabhava. Bharatiyata that talks of vasudhaivakutumbakam—the whole world as one single family. Bharatiyata that prays for loka samasta sukhino bhavantu—welfare of the entire world.To respect others one has to learn to respect oneself first. Any feeling of mutual respect cannot be true and sustainable until that feeling sprout out of abundant self-respect. Otherwise a sense of insecurity would hinder true and boundless respect for the ‘other’.
While Hindutva should always be open to any criticism or correction or reformation, it should not end up being apologetic or defeatist, in front of its detractors. India is a secular country only, and only, because Hinduism is essentially secular. If ‘secularism’ is interpreted and practised as Anti-Hinduism, or forcefully pro-active minorityism to the extent of repeated Hindu-bashing, any self-respecting Hindu should stand up,and uphold his swaabhiman and Atma-gaurav.And that is why I wish to stand up and proclaim to the whole world: I am proud to be a Hindu!!!
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Terrorism in India
Dr Anil A Athale (Rediff News, 12.06.08)
After the Jaipur terror attacks on May 13, we saw the routine that happens after every attack. There were VIP visits, compensation announced to the victims, politicians spoke of 'zero tolerance', television channels held the usual debates, the police announced imminent breakthroughs. Soon everything is forgotten, till the next terror attack. At which time, I am sure the same sequence will be repeated. Here is my attempt to answer some of frequently asked questions.
Why are attacks by Islamic groups called Islamist terrorism? Other terror groups like the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) or the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have Hindus or Christians but are not called Hindu or Christian terrorists?
It is undoubtedly true that there are other terrorists as well, for instance the Naxalites or Maoists. The reason why the adjective 'Islamists' is used is that no other terror group invokes religious sanction or quotes religious texts to justify their acts. In fact, the Tamil Tigers has Hindus as well as Christians (their spokesperson for many years was Anton Balasingham, a Christian). Neither has the IRA nor Tamil Tigers ever quoted any religious scriptures to justify their actions, the Islamists have and continue to do so. The link between religious places and schools to these acts, is also well established. Finally, the Islamist terrorists themselves have time and again openly admitted the religious nature of their ultimate goal -- Islamisation. It would be dishonest if this reality is ignored.
What about State terrorism?
It is true that the State also uses force to deal with revolts and violence and against criminals. But in a democracy with a judiciary and rule of law, the use of force by the State is accountable and has to be within the bounds of law. At times individuals do transgress those limits, but those are aberrations. Use of force by a State to enforce law cannot be equated with State terrorism, unless that State has a policy of genocide or is dictatorial like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.Unfortunately social activists and champions of human rights forget that it is the legitimate function of the State to use force. If the State abdicates this responsibility then we are inviting anarchy and in words of Hobbes, a 16th century English philosopher, a situation of war of every one against every one and human life 'nasty, brutish and short.
'You are biased, what about the terrorism of the Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc?
These are indeed organisations that believe in violent means and must be dealt under the law. But at worst, these are extremists and militants, like militant trade unions for example. The shallow coverage by the media has created the confusion about definition of terrorism and who is a terrorist. There is tendency to lump together terms like militants, insurgents, extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists. While all the variety of people fighting for some cause or other may at times indulge in terrorism, a terrorist is one whose primary aim is to cause maximum destruction. In that sense strictly speaking, when a Kashmiri extremist attacks a soldier, it is wrong to call it a terrorist attack, it is part of an insurgency. We must be clear about this difference. A terrorist is an individual who carries out a terrorist act. A terrorist act is one in which totally unconnected persons are targeted and killed. Terrorism is random violence that makes no distinction between people and promotes fear. It is no accident that in the Jaipur attack as well as elsewhere, many Muslims lost their lives.It is a fallacy to claim that everything is fair in love and war. Even in war there are written and unwritten rules. The terrorists do not follow them. For instance in war, civilians are not deliberately targeted (they still die as collateral damage) while terrorists, for instance in Beslan in Russia chose a school or local trains in Mumbai.While there are groups and organisations that are militant, fundamentalist and violence prone, they have not yet graduated to earn the 'terrorist' tag. If the State fails to curb minority terrorism then the majority may well begin to have its own terrorist organisations.
If we use violence against terrorists then are we not betraying our Gandhian legacy?
Gandhian methods of non-violent struggle were successful against the British colonialists. But the British were a civilised people. British liberals like Edmund Burke were in favour of Indian independence as early as in 1773 (Burke's speeches in the British parliament on the Regulating Act). To assume universality of success of these methods for all times to come is false. Did the non-violent Jews survive Hitler? Closer home, in Gandhi's lifetime itself, in October 1947, it was force that saved the Kashmir valley from Pakistani-backed raiders. Even more telling, the same non-violent movement in the Portuguese colony of Goa, failed in 1956-1957. Goa was liberated by force in 1961.
An oft quoted Gandhian phrase is that if all were to follow an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, then the world would go blind. The counter to that is that if only some follow this and others don't then it is the non-violent who would go blind while the rogues will rule the world.
After the Jaipur terror attacks on May 13, we saw the routine that happens after every attack. There were VIP visits, compensation announced to the victims, politicians spoke of 'zero tolerance', television channels held the usual debates, the police announced imminent breakthroughs. Soon everything is forgotten, till the next terror attack. At which time, I am sure the same sequence will be repeated. Here is my attempt to answer some of frequently asked questions.
Why are attacks by Islamic groups called Islamist terrorism? Other terror groups like the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) or the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have Hindus or Christians but are not called Hindu or Christian terrorists?
It is undoubtedly true that there are other terrorists as well, for instance the Naxalites or Maoists. The reason why the adjective 'Islamists' is used is that no other terror group invokes religious sanction or quotes religious texts to justify their acts. In fact, the Tamil Tigers has Hindus as well as Christians (their spokesperson for many years was Anton Balasingham, a Christian). Neither has the IRA nor Tamil Tigers ever quoted any religious scriptures to justify their actions, the Islamists have and continue to do so. The link between religious places and schools to these acts, is also well established. Finally, the Islamist terrorists themselves have time and again openly admitted the religious nature of their ultimate goal -- Islamisation. It would be dishonest if this reality is ignored.
What about State terrorism?
It is true that the State also uses force to deal with revolts and violence and against criminals. But in a democracy with a judiciary and rule of law, the use of force by the State is accountable and has to be within the bounds of law. At times individuals do transgress those limits, but those are aberrations. Use of force by a State to enforce law cannot be equated with State terrorism, unless that State has a policy of genocide or is dictatorial like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union.Unfortunately social activists and champions of human rights forget that it is the legitimate function of the State to use force. If the State abdicates this responsibility then we are inviting anarchy and in words of Hobbes, a 16th century English philosopher, a situation of war of every one against every one and human life 'nasty, brutish and short.
'You are biased, what about the terrorism of the Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc?
These are indeed organisations that believe in violent means and must be dealt under the law. But at worst, these are extremists and militants, like militant trade unions for example. The shallow coverage by the media has created the confusion about definition of terrorism and who is a terrorist. There is tendency to lump together terms like militants, insurgents, extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists. While all the variety of people fighting for some cause or other may at times indulge in terrorism, a terrorist is one whose primary aim is to cause maximum destruction. In that sense strictly speaking, when a Kashmiri extremist attacks a soldier, it is wrong to call it a terrorist attack, it is part of an insurgency. We must be clear about this difference. A terrorist is an individual who carries out a terrorist act. A terrorist act is one in which totally unconnected persons are targeted and killed. Terrorism is random violence that makes no distinction between people and promotes fear. It is no accident that in the Jaipur attack as well as elsewhere, many Muslims lost their lives.It is a fallacy to claim that everything is fair in love and war. Even in war there are written and unwritten rules. The terrorists do not follow them. For instance in war, civilians are not deliberately targeted (they still die as collateral damage) while terrorists, for instance in Beslan in Russia chose a school or local trains in Mumbai.While there are groups and organisations that are militant, fundamentalist and violence prone, they have not yet graduated to earn the 'terrorist' tag. If the State fails to curb minority terrorism then the majority may well begin to have its own terrorist organisations.
If we use violence against terrorists then are we not betraying our Gandhian legacy?
Gandhian methods of non-violent struggle were successful against the British colonialists. But the British were a civilised people. British liberals like Edmund Burke were in favour of Indian independence as early as in 1773 (Burke's speeches in the British parliament on the Regulating Act). To assume universality of success of these methods for all times to come is false. Did the non-violent Jews survive Hitler? Closer home, in Gandhi's lifetime itself, in October 1947, it was force that saved the Kashmir valley from Pakistani-backed raiders. Even more telling, the same non-violent movement in the Portuguese colony of Goa, failed in 1956-1957. Goa was liberated by force in 1961.
An oft quoted Gandhian phrase is that if all were to follow an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, then the world would go blind. The counter to that is that if only some follow this and others don't then it is the non-violent who would go blind while the rogues will rule the world.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
125th Birth anniversary of V.D. Savarkar
India's debt to Savarkar
Priyadarsi Dutta (pioneer, 29.5.08)
His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as 'Sawarkar', and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that "why the paper did not burn". In those days, India's freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal's partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement. India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength. Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi's policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru's dream of "talking his way to leadership of the world", and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was -- a meek leader of a Third World country. Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.
Priyadarsi Dutta (pioneer, 29.5.08)
His Irish admirers fondly misspelt him as 'Sawarkar', and politely declined to make amends when Shyamji Krishna Verma, his sponsor in England, clarified the point. It was difficult for his readers to imagine him without invoking imageries of war. His pen, dipped in blood, breathed so much fire that it was a wonder that "why the paper did not burn". In those days, India's freedom movement was not stricken with the phthisis of non-violence and obsessive compulsive disorder of Hindu-Muslim unity introduced by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose 125th birth anniversary was marked on May 28, was 14 years junior to Gandhi. But he was years ahead of him on many counts. He set the goal of absolute independence for India in 1900; Gandhi asked for it in 1929. He performed a bonfire of foreign clothes in 1905, during the movement against Bengal's partition, an idea emulated by Gandhi for his noncooperation movement. India could have been spared of its emasculation had it abided by Savarkarite clarity rather than Gandhian absurdities. To Savarkar, as he succinctly put down in his last book, Six Glorious Chapters of Indian History, no nation could aspire for civilisational greatness without acquiring military strength. Savarkar lived to see the vindication of his proposition in contemporary India. Gandhi's policy of pacifism failed to buy peace with Muslims, leading to carnages and expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan. Jawaharlal Nehru's dream of "talking his way to leadership of the world", and forging Hindi-Chini brotherhood through slogans failed badly. Slapped hard by China, he was exposed for what he was -- a meek leader of a Third World country. Independent India scarcely realises the greatest debt it owes to Savarkar; turning a Muslim dominated Indian Army into a predominantly Hindu-Sikh Army with his whirlwind recruitment drive during World War II. If it were otherwise, Pakistan, even after partition, would have 60 per cent to 70 per cent of soldiers, enough to overwhelm West Bengal, East Punjab, threatening Delhi, let alone much talked about Jammu & Kashmir.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Why I write what I write?
By M.S.N. Menon (Organiser April 2008)
Is it because I am a Hindu bigot? Or, because I hate the minorities? More so, the Muslims? Dear Readers, if ever you thought so, you were mistaken. But I know that you have not seen me in this light. I am a nationalist. I love my country. I am proud of its past and of its great achievements. I am grateful to it all. And to my ancestors. They have given me pre-eminence among the peoples of the world. I am, therefore, concerned at the way the country is being led by a blind and ignorant leadership. For a thousand years we Hindus were under foreign rule. This is unprecedented in human history. The march of the greatest civilisation was arrested. Its roots were cut. And its people were silenced. Are we Hindus aware of the great damage that these thousand years of subjection have inflicted on us? We are not. Alas, even to enquire into it is taboo in our country! Why? Because, it is claimed, it will “offend” the minorities. Should we, therefore, falsify and prettify our history? It is time to break the silence that we have imposed on ourselves. We should lift the veil, as Tagore says. Silence did not save the country from Partition. The country was divided into two, leaving a bitterness that has festered to this day. Hindus are awake today. India is awake. The spell of a thousand years of subjection seems to have been broken. We have discovered our past. It is time to resume our journey. But the vast minority of Hindus—and that includes the upper and middle classes—know almost nothing of the greatness of their past. That is why they are ready to accept western leadership and the western way of life. So, are we condemned to remain the Caliban for ever? Can India never lead? Has it no message for mankind? It has. But we need a new generation to lead India again to its greatness—a generation that is profoundly inspired by nationalism, a generation that is aware of its great history. Destiny beckons India. History has chosen it for a special mission. It is already on the move. India must provide the moral leadership, they say. Says Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, former Superior General of the Jesuit Order: “How in India people with many languages, religions and cultures live together is a lesson to learn. India has an important role to play in shaping the destiny of mankind.” Others agree. The point is: no other country in the world can take up this role. This task belongs to India alone, for it is only India that inspires the trust of mankind. But Tagore says, our people cannot go out into the world with an empty hand. We must carry our inheritance with us. But what is our inheritance? We Hindus do not know. As for Muslims and Christians, they reject the Hindu inheritance. I write what I write because I want Indians to think on these mental confusions. I want them to know their inheritance. And I want them to know the inheritance of others as well. What I write cannot be found in the media. The “Organiser” is an exception. We Hindus do not say, as Christians and Muslims do, that the “Gospel is the last word,” that “the Quran is the last word.” We say that the last word is with God. To know it is to know the mind of God! And to know the mind of God is to become God! The thought frightens me. The Hindu civilisation fascinates me. There is nothing like it in the world. It leaves you free. It consists of two streams—that of the mind and that of the senses. You can have your choice. The stream of the mind reached its apogee in Advaita. And that of the senses produced the richest material and sensual civilisation on earth. We call it “popular Hinduism.” Both are important. But the future belongs to the stream of the mind. Our journey is to super-consciousness. So says Aurobindo. The scientists agree. It was the mystery of the universe that set us on our quest. The Rig Veda wonders: “Who is there who truly knows, and who can say whence this unfathomed world, and from what cause!” We are still on the quest for an answer. That is the Hindu mission. The Christians and Muslims cannot joint us in this quest. They have the answers in their books. They are perhaps frozen in time. They will continue to mark time. They will live a repetitive life. They cannot march with us without causing immense damage to their religious beliefs. Our ways are, thus, different. But we can live together. How? Let us learn that too. That Hindus are living “in darkness”, that Hinduism is a “false religion”—these are still the kind of things being said about us by our critics. Why? Because we Hindus are a gentle people, our State is a soft State and we are ignorant of our past. Let us work on a New India—an India for the “Global Indian.”
Is it because I am a Hindu bigot? Or, because I hate the minorities? More so, the Muslims? Dear Readers, if ever you thought so, you were mistaken. But I know that you have not seen me in this light. I am a nationalist. I love my country. I am proud of its past and of its great achievements. I am grateful to it all. And to my ancestors. They have given me pre-eminence among the peoples of the world. I am, therefore, concerned at the way the country is being led by a blind and ignorant leadership. For a thousand years we Hindus were under foreign rule. This is unprecedented in human history. The march of the greatest civilisation was arrested. Its roots were cut. And its people were silenced. Are we Hindus aware of the great damage that these thousand years of subjection have inflicted on us? We are not. Alas, even to enquire into it is taboo in our country! Why? Because, it is claimed, it will “offend” the minorities. Should we, therefore, falsify and prettify our history? It is time to break the silence that we have imposed on ourselves. We should lift the veil, as Tagore says. Silence did not save the country from Partition. The country was divided into two, leaving a bitterness that has festered to this day. Hindus are awake today. India is awake. The spell of a thousand years of subjection seems to have been broken. We have discovered our past. It is time to resume our journey. But the vast minority of Hindus—and that includes the upper and middle classes—know almost nothing of the greatness of their past. That is why they are ready to accept western leadership and the western way of life. So, are we condemned to remain the Caliban for ever? Can India never lead? Has it no message for mankind? It has. But we need a new generation to lead India again to its greatness—a generation that is profoundly inspired by nationalism, a generation that is aware of its great history. Destiny beckons India. History has chosen it for a special mission. It is already on the move. India must provide the moral leadership, they say. Says Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, former Superior General of the Jesuit Order: “How in India people with many languages, religions and cultures live together is a lesson to learn. India has an important role to play in shaping the destiny of mankind.” Others agree. The point is: no other country in the world can take up this role. This task belongs to India alone, for it is only India that inspires the trust of mankind. But Tagore says, our people cannot go out into the world with an empty hand. We must carry our inheritance with us. But what is our inheritance? We Hindus do not know. As for Muslims and Christians, they reject the Hindu inheritance. I write what I write because I want Indians to think on these mental confusions. I want them to know their inheritance. And I want them to know the inheritance of others as well. What I write cannot be found in the media. The “Organiser” is an exception. We Hindus do not say, as Christians and Muslims do, that the “Gospel is the last word,” that “the Quran is the last word.” We say that the last word is with God. To know it is to know the mind of God! And to know the mind of God is to become God! The thought frightens me. The Hindu civilisation fascinates me. There is nothing like it in the world. It leaves you free. It consists of two streams—that of the mind and that of the senses. You can have your choice. The stream of the mind reached its apogee in Advaita. And that of the senses produced the richest material and sensual civilisation on earth. We call it “popular Hinduism.” Both are important. But the future belongs to the stream of the mind. Our journey is to super-consciousness. So says Aurobindo. The scientists agree. It was the mystery of the universe that set us on our quest. The Rig Veda wonders: “Who is there who truly knows, and who can say whence this unfathomed world, and from what cause!” We are still on the quest for an answer. That is the Hindu mission. The Christians and Muslims cannot joint us in this quest. They have the answers in their books. They are perhaps frozen in time. They will continue to mark time. They will live a repetitive life. They cannot march with us without causing immense damage to their religious beliefs. Our ways are, thus, different. But we can live together. How? Let us learn that too. That Hindus are living “in darkness”, that Hinduism is a “false religion”—these are still the kind of things being said about us by our critics. Why? Because we Hindus are a gentle people, our State is a soft State and we are ignorant of our past. Let us work on a New India—an India for the “Global Indian.”
Thursday, April 10, 2008
CONCEPT OF TIME IN ANCIENT BHARAT
The Indian word for Geography is Bhugol, which means that the earth is round. Hindu temples are built as per the agamas set forth in the Vedas. The temples usually have a Navagraha that have all the planets of the Solar system. Here we can see that the Sun is in the middle of the solar family. Ancient scientists like Aryabhatta, Varahamihira, Bhaskaracharya, Brahma Gupta in the 5th and 7th centuries, made many calculations about the size and circumference of the earth, distance between the heavenly bodies and the periods of their movements around the sun. Their findings reckon closely with modern calculations. In Europe, Nicholas Copernicus in 1543 and Galileo in 1616 proposed that the earth is round, that it moves and that it revolves round the sun. But their theories were not only rejected but also declared as heresy. Giardano Bruno was burnt at the stakes on 17 February 1600 for his scientific views. Thus we see that the science in Bharat was at least 1,000 years ahead of that in Europe.
Lord Sun was worshipped in Ramayana and he was depicted in the Vedas as a shining personality riding a chariot driven by seven horses. These seven horses denote the seven days in a week. A question arises as to why did they show seven horses? The answer is again scientific. Sun ray passing through a prism or a raindrop breaks into seven colors (VIBGYOR). Also the Navagrahas contain nine heavenly bodies of the solar system. (Of these Rahu and Ketu are merely nodes in the orbit of the sun or earth)
DIVISION OF TIME IN THE HINDU CALENDAR
A. SMALLER UNITS OF TIME
The smallest unit of time as per the Hindu calculations in Truti which is 33,750th of a second
100 Trutis make a Tatpara,
30 Tatparas make a Nimesha and 45 Nimeshas make a Prana and A Prana is 4 seconds, the average time taken for breathing in and out by a normal healthy person..
1 Tithi or Divas is 1 day, the period of time from Sun-Rise to Sun-Rise on the following day. 1 Tithi or day is divided into 2 halves – Ahar the day time and Ratra the night time.
The day is further divided into 30 Muhurtas or 60 Ghatikas. Each Muhurta therefore is 48 minutes and each Ghatika is 24 minutes.
Each Ghatika is divided into 60 Palas and each Pala is further divided into 60 Vipalas. Thus a Vipala is 0.4 seconds.
7 days make a week called Saptah.
1 month called Maas is divided into 2 halves – Shukla Pakshha from Amavasya to Purnima (New moon to Full Moon) and the Krishna Paksha from Purnima to Amavasya. The month starts from the day after Amavasya.
1 year called Varsha is divided into 2 halves of 6 months each called Uttarayana and Dakshinayana. It is also divided into 3 parts of 4 months each called the Chaturmaas, 6 seasons of 2 months duration each called Vasant Ritu, Grishma Ritu, Varsha Ritu, Sharad Ritu, Hemant Ritu and Shishir Ritu.
There are 12 months in a year and the names of the months are Chaitra, Vaishakha, Jyaishtha, Ahadh, Shravan, Bhadrapad, Ashwin, Kartik, Margashirsha, Pausha, Magh and Phalgun.
B. BIGGER UNITS OF TIME
Higher values of years are called Yugas (Eras or Eons). There are four yugas. Kaliyuga has 432,000 years, Dwapar Yuga has 864,000 years, Treta Yuga has 1,296,000 years and Satya Yuga or Kruta Yuga has 1,728,000 years. A cycle of these four yugas, called a Mahayuga is therefore, 4,320,000 years.
1,000 Mahayugas make the day time (Kalpa) of Brahma, the Creator and another 1,000 Mahayugas make his night time.
360 Brahma Days make one Brahma Year and 100 such Brahma years make his working Period called Brahma-Ayu or Maha-Kalpa. Mahakalpa is the largest unit of time which is 311,040,000,000,000 solar years.
Thus Hindus have
Truti the smallest Unit of time which is 33,750th of a second
Maha Kalpa the largest unit of time which is 311,040,000,000,000 solar years
HINDU CALENDAR & THE WESTERN SIMILARITIES
The names of the weekdays are the same, of course different words in different languages, and in the same order. What we call as Bhanuwar or Raviwar in India is called Sunday. Bhanu or Ravi means the sun. The next day we call Somawar. Soma means the moon and the day in Europe was called Moonday which became Monday. Similarly Saturday or Shaniwar s named after the planet Saturn equivalent to the planet Shani. The other days of the week in the European calendar are named after the Greek Gods and in the Hindu calendar are named after the other solar planets. The week days in Bharat are named in a particular order depending on their distance from the earth - moon is the nearest heavenly body affecting the lives on earth followed by Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn is the farthest one here, Sun is the centre of the solar system. Thus we have Raviwar, followed by Somawar, Mangal, Budh, Guru, Shukra and Shani corresponding to these planets.
Another fact is the division of the year into twelve months current in the entire world. The original Western Roman calendar prior to 525 AD had only 10 months - January, February, March, April, May and June followed by September (Sapta - 7th), October (Ashta - 8th), November (Nava - 9th) and December (Dasha - 10th). But when they came into contact with our science of astronomy, they found that they were wrong and added two months after their great emperors i.e. July after Julius Caesar and August after Augustus and this was taken over in the present Gregorian calendar.
Since Yugadi, the Hindu Lunar New Year fell in March, Europe also accepted March as their New Year. March, April, May, June, July, August was followed by September (Sapta-7th) and so on till December (Dasha - 10th). January was their eleventh month and February was their last month or 12th month. That is why all months had 30 or 31 days and the last month February had the balance of 28 or 29 days to complete a year of 365 or 366 days.
Measurement of day and night
The earth rotates round its axis at the rate of 1600 kms per hour and as such approx. 24 hours (23 hrs 56 min) are taken from one sun-rise to another. Due to this rotation a civil day of 24 hours including night is formed. The lighted part of the earth is known as day (ahah) and the dark part as night (ratri). Thus both day and night are called ahoratra. Later developed hora system was the degenerated form of a-hora-tra only. The English term ‘hour’ also evolved from Sanskrit term ‘hora’.
Sankalpa is observed before the commencement of any religious activity.
In the Sankalpa we mention, Kalpa, Manvantara, Yugadi, Samvat, Ayana, Ritu, Maas, Paksha, Tithi, Vaar, gruha, Nakshatra and the geographical location of the place where the religious activity is conducted. Thus our forefathers, the Vedic Rishis had a complete knowledge of Astronomy and geography (Khagol and Bhugol Shastra).
1 Manvantar is the time taken by Solar System for 1 revolution, which is 322,580,000 years (32 crore, 25 lakhs, 80 thousand years)
There are 14 Manvantaras. We are now in the seventh Manvantara called Vaivasvatha Manvantara
1 Mahayug is the time taken to complete a cycle of Kali yug, Dwapar yug, Treta yug and Satya yug. This is 4.32 million years.We have completed 27 such mahayugas are now in the 28th Mahayuga.
1 Kaliyuga is 432,000 years.Twice of kaliyug is Dwapar yug 864,000 years.Thrice of Kaliyug is Treta Yug 1,296,000 years and four times is Satyayug 1,728,000 years.
We have completed several Kaliyugas Mahayugas and Manvantaras.
In this present Kaliyuga, we have completed 51 centuries and today we are entering the Chiatra Shudha Pratipada in the second year of 52nd century in Kaliyug.
(Yugabda 5110, AD 2008)
Interesting Anecdote
Two friends Ram and Shyam went on a camping trip.
After a good meal and mouthful of pedas, they lay down for the night, and went to sleep.
Some hours later, Ram awoke and nudged his faithful friend. “Shyam, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Shyam replied. "I see millions and millions of stars."
”What does that tell you?" Shyam pondered for a minute.
"Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo.
Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
“What does it tell you?"
Ram was silent for a minute, then spoke.
"Shyam, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent."
Maya in Physics
The Sanskrit word for Uiverse is ‘Viswa’ meaning ‘all’. Thus the universe may be defined as that which includes everything. ‘Jagat’ is another word in Sanskrit, used in the sense of the universe. It is derived from the Sanskrit verb root ‘gam’ (gam+kvip), which means ‘to go’. Everything in Jagat is in motion, everything is changeable, mutable. Anything which is at rest, which is motionless and immutable is not concerned with jagat. There is another word ‘samsara’ (sam+sr+ghan) in Sanskrit. It is also used for universe. According to this concept, everything in the universe moves with others in harmony. It is akin to the word ‘cosmos’ involving order instead of disorder or chaos.
Study of the Vedic literature of ancient India reveals that a few astrophysical concepts prevalent at that time have close resemblance with those of modern sciences.
· The cosmic egg, the excessive heat produced in the cosmic egg and the bursting of the egg have been mentioned in unambiguous language. (Tandva Brahmana vii.10.1; Jaimini Brahmana I.145; III.12; Shatapat Brahmana VI.1.2.3.)
· After the explosion of the primordial egg, the universe expanded. (Mundaka Upanishad I.1.8)
· The stars were formed out of clouds of gases and dust. (RV, V.47.3; X121.5; YV, XIII.30; Tbra 1.5.2.5; S.Bra VII.5.1.8; X.6.5.2; J.Bra II.45 and 62; A.Bra IV.20).
· The earth had its origin from the sun. All the planets of our solar system and the moons of the planets originated primarily from the sun. (TS, III.4.3; VII.3.10; S.Bra, I.4.1.22; J.Bra I.87; Vap, 50.99.53;
· The earth is spherical in shape. (S.Bra VII.1.1.37)
· The sun, the earth, the moon and the other planets and the space are all spherical in shape. (J.Bra, I.2.57; II.62; S.Bra VII.1.1.37)
· The interior of the earth is full of hot molten mass. (YV, XI.57; S.Bra, XIV.9.4.21; T.S. V5.2)
· The earth and the other planets of the solar system rotate round their respective axis and revolve round the sun. (YV, III.6; A.Bra III.4.6)
Early Western Concept
“God has created man and created everything else for the pleasure of man. The centre of the universe is man. Earth is the place where man lives. Hence the anthropocentric universe is bound to be geocentric. Earth is the centre of the universe. It is stationary and everything else is moving around it. The sky is a dome-shaped blue canopy hanging over the earth. The sun and the moon are small objects wandering in the sky. The stars are insignificant specs of light glued to the sky for decorative purpose only.” This was the anthropocentric and geocentric concept of the Western man.
‘The world’, ‘the universe’, ‘the cosmos’ and ‘the Earth’ were synonymous terms in the geocentric concept. Such an idea has now been discarded. It has been realized that the earth occupies an insignificant dot in the illimitable universe.
For Aristotle (384-322 BC), the Greek philosopher, it was the law of Nature for the heavens to be perfect and changeless. Hipparchus (190-120 BC) was a Greek astronomer. Claudius Ptolemies (AD 100-170), who was another Greek astronomer, summarized Hipparchian system and his own in the form of a book. Both these astronomers could visualize the epicycloid motion of planets. Ptolemy gave the idea of a geocentric universe. In the Ptolemaic system, the Earth is pictured as the centre of the universe, with all other astronomical bodies circling around it. The Bible supported the idea of the geocentric universe.
Pliny (AD 23-79) a Roman scholar was astonished to observe a new star in Scorpio. But how could it be possible? If it violated the concept of a ‘perfect and changeless heavens’ could it be correct? Is it not sacrilegious to report a change in the heavens? The medieval astronomers in Europe and Middle East might have observed changing stars in the heavens; but they might not have reported their findings on religious grounds, and might have explained them away as their observational errors. The astronomers of that age, whether Christian or Muslim, saw in the perfection of the heavens a symbol of the perfection of God. He could not dare to find a flaw in the perfection of the created objects of God. For the astronomer, the earth too would have been perfect, had not Adam and Eve committed the first sin. They ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. That was the reason of the earth being imperfect. But nothing like that happened for the heavens. And so the heavens were perfect and changeless.
In the sixteenth century, there was a conceptual change in the Western world, and hence the old idea of the changelessness of the heavens was discarded. In 1543 Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish astronomer proved that the sun was the centre of the universe and that all the planets including the earth revolved round the sun. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) an Italian philosopher supported the Copernican heliocentric theory and also popularized his own theory that each star is a sun attended by a retinue of planets. This was originally the doctrine of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), a German cleric. At that time no one believed the fact that there were stars too dim to see. People questioned, “Why should such invisible stars exist? Why did God create them? Is it not sacrilegious to suggest that God’s creation is purposeless? Bruno was declared to be a heretic and burned at the stake.
The heliocentric concept that the sun was the centre of the universe, was in vogue until Harlow Shapely (1885-1972), an American astronomer gave a big blow to it. He showed that the sun was not the centre of our galaxy and that it was far on the outskirts of the galaxy. According to him, our position in our galaxy (Milky Way) and the then supposed universe was eccentric.
Our galaxy, the Milky Way was then considered the universe. Now it is well known that there are innumerable galaxies and all of them are in motion; all of them move; In our present concept, the universe has no centre. We live in an acentric universe.
The Gregorian calendar
The present calendar used worldwide which says this year as 2008 AD is called the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 by a Papal Bull. This superceded the previous Julian calendar that was introduced in 4 AD and later amended in 525 AD by a Roman abbot Dionysus Exiguous.
By the Papal order, Pope Gregory omitted 10 days in the calendar to make corrections for the difference between the sidereal year and the solar year. Thus, Thursday 4 October 1582 was followed by Friday 15th October 1582. Further corrections were made by omitting 1 day each in the years 1700, 1800 and 1900 AD.
Science in the West in 16th Century
The western world did not know in those days that earth was round in shape that the earth was moving around its own axis and that earth revolved round the sun. Scientist Nicolas Copernicus published the books "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies" in 1543 and dedicated it to the Pope of his times. But this book was rejected and banned and was called the devils work. In 1616 Galileo who observed the sunspots said that the earth is moving (E pur si mouve). He faced the solemn condemnations of the western authorities that proclaimed his theory as heresy. Galileo approaching 70 years was imprisoned, blinded and helpless in the jail, he died after 9 years. In 1600 another scientist Giordano Bruno paid the price of his faith in science at the stakes.
In the absence of the knowledge about the sun, the moon, the earth and their shapes, distances, their orbits etc no calendar can be designed properly. Hence the western calendar was based on the scientific discoveries made in other countries especially India with which it had an active contact even prior to the times of Pythagoras, Megasthanese and Alexander.
Lord Sun was worshipped in Ramayana and he was depicted in the Vedas as a shining personality riding a chariot driven by seven horses. These seven horses denote the seven days in a week. A question arises as to why did they show seven horses? The answer is again scientific. Sun ray passing through a prism or a raindrop breaks into seven colors (VIBGYOR). Also the Navagrahas contain nine heavenly bodies of the solar system. (Of these Rahu and Ketu are merely nodes in the orbit of the sun or earth)
DIVISION OF TIME IN THE HINDU CALENDAR
A. SMALLER UNITS OF TIME
The smallest unit of time as per the Hindu calculations in Truti which is 33,750th of a second
100 Trutis make a Tatpara,
30 Tatparas make a Nimesha and 45 Nimeshas make a Prana and A Prana is 4 seconds, the average time taken for breathing in and out by a normal healthy person..
1 Tithi or Divas is 1 day, the period of time from Sun-Rise to Sun-Rise on the following day. 1 Tithi or day is divided into 2 halves – Ahar the day time and Ratra the night time.
The day is further divided into 30 Muhurtas or 60 Ghatikas. Each Muhurta therefore is 48 minutes and each Ghatika is 24 minutes.
Each Ghatika is divided into 60 Palas and each Pala is further divided into 60 Vipalas. Thus a Vipala is 0.4 seconds.
7 days make a week called Saptah.
1 month called Maas is divided into 2 halves – Shukla Pakshha from Amavasya to Purnima (New moon to Full Moon) and the Krishna Paksha from Purnima to Amavasya. The month starts from the day after Amavasya.
1 year called Varsha is divided into 2 halves of 6 months each called Uttarayana and Dakshinayana. It is also divided into 3 parts of 4 months each called the Chaturmaas, 6 seasons of 2 months duration each called Vasant Ritu, Grishma Ritu, Varsha Ritu, Sharad Ritu, Hemant Ritu and Shishir Ritu.
There are 12 months in a year and the names of the months are Chaitra, Vaishakha, Jyaishtha, Ahadh, Shravan, Bhadrapad, Ashwin, Kartik, Margashirsha, Pausha, Magh and Phalgun.
B. BIGGER UNITS OF TIME
Higher values of years are called Yugas (Eras or Eons). There are four yugas. Kaliyuga has 432,000 years, Dwapar Yuga has 864,000 years, Treta Yuga has 1,296,000 years and Satya Yuga or Kruta Yuga has 1,728,000 years. A cycle of these four yugas, called a Mahayuga is therefore, 4,320,000 years.
1,000 Mahayugas make the day time (Kalpa) of Brahma, the Creator and another 1,000 Mahayugas make his night time.
360 Brahma Days make one Brahma Year and 100 such Brahma years make his working Period called Brahma-Ayu or Maha-Kalpa. Mahakalpa is the largest unit of time which is 311,040,000,000,000 solar years.
Thus Hindus have
Truti the smallest Unit of time which is 33,750th of a second
Maha Kalpa the largest unit of time which is 311,040,000,000,000 solar years
HINDU CALENDAR & THE WESTERN SIMILARITIES
The names of the weekdays are the same, of course different words in different languages, and in the same order. What we call as Bhanuwar or Raviwar in India is called Sunday. Bhanu or Ravi means the sun. The next day we call Somawar. Soma means the moon and the day in Europe was called Moonday which became Monday. Similarly Saturday or Shaniwar s named after the planet Saturn equivalent to the planet Shani. The other days of the week in the European calendar are named after the Greek Gods and in the Hindu calendar are named after the other solar planets. The week days in Bharat are named in a particular order depending on their distance from the earth - moon is the nearest heavenly body affecting the lives on earth followed by Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and Saturn is the farthest one here, Sun is the centre of the solar system. Thus we have Raviwar, followed by Somawar, Mangal, Budh, Guru, Shukra and Shani corresponding to these planets.
Another fact is the division of the year into twelve months current in the entire world. The original Western Roman calendar prior to 525 AD had only 10 months - January, February, March, April, May and June followed by September (Sapta - 7th), October (Ashta - 8th), November (Nava - 9th) and December (Dasha - 10th). But when they came into contact with our science of astronomy, they found that they were wrong and added two months after their great emperors i.e. July after Julius Caesar and August after Augustus and this was taken over in the present Gregorian calendar.
Since Yugadi, the Hindu Lunar New Year fell in March, Europe also accepted March as their New Year. March, April, May, June, July, August was followed by September (Sapta-7th) and so on till December (Dasha - 10th). January was their eleventh month and February was their last month or 12th month. That is why all months had 30 or 31 days and the last month February had the balance of 28 or 29 days to complete a year of 365 or 366 days.
Measurement of day and night
The earth rotates round its axis at the rate of 1600 kms per hour and as such approx. 24 hours (23 hrs 56 min) are taken from one sun-rise to another. Due to this rotation a civil day of 24 hours including night is formed. The lighted part of the earth is known as day (ahah) and the dark part as night (ratri). Thus both day and night are called ahoratra. Later developed hora system was the degenerated form of a-hora-tra only. The English term ‘hour’ also evolved from Sanskrit term ‘hora’.
Sankalpa is observed before the commencement of any religious activity.
In the Sankalpa we mention, Kalpa, Manvantara, Yugadi, Samvat, Ayana, Ritu, Maas, Paksha, Tithi, Vaar, gruha, Nakshatra and the geographical location of the place where the religious activity is conducted. Thus our forefathers, the Vedic Rishis had a complete knowledge of Astronomy and geography (Khagol and Bhugol Shastra).
1 Manvantar is the time taken by Solar System for 1 revolution, which is 322,580,000 years (32 crore, 25 lakhs, 80 thousand years)
There are 14 Manvantaras. We are now in the seventh Manvantara called Vaivasvatha Manvantara
1 Mahayug is the time taken to complete a cycle of Kali yug, Dwapar yug, Treta yug and Satya yug. This is 4.32 million years.We have completed 27 such mahayugas are now in the 28th Mahayuga.
1 Kaliyuga is 432,000 years.Twice of kaliyug is Dwapar yug 864,000 years.Thrice of Kaliyug is Treta Yug 1,296,000 years and four times is Satyayug 1,728,000 years.
We have completed several Kaliyugas Mahayugas and Manvantaras.
In this present Kaliyuga, we have completed 51 centuries and today we are entering the Chiatra Shudha Pratipada in the second year of 52nd century in Kaliyug.
(Yugabda 5110, AD 2008)
Interesting Anecdote
Two friends Ram and Shyam went on a camping trip.
After a good meal and mouthful of pedas, they lay down for the night, and went to sleep.
Some hours later, Ram awoke and nudged his faithful friend. “Shyam, look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Shyam replied. "I see millions and millions of stars."
”What does that tell you?" Shyam pondered for a minute.
"Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo.
Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, I can see that God is all-powerful and that we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
“What does it tell you?"
Ram was silent for a minute, then spoke.
"Shyam, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent."
Maya in Physics
The Sanskrit word for Uiverse is ‘Viswa’ meaning ‘all’. Thus the universe may be defined as that which includes everything. ‘Jagat’ is another word in Sanskrit, used in the sense of the universe. It is derived from the Sanskrit verb root ‘gam’ (gam+kvip), which means ‘to go’. Everything in Jagat is in motion, everything is changeable, mutable. Anything which is at rest, which is motionless and immutable is not concerned with jagat. There is another word ‘samsara’ (sam+sr+ghan) in Sanskrit. It is also used for universe. According to this concept, everything in the universe moves with others in harmony. It is akin to the word ‘cosmos’ involving order instead of disorder or chaos.
Study of the Vedic literature of ancient India reveals that a few astrophysical concepts prevalent at that time have close resemblance with those of modern sciences.
· The cosmic egg, the excessive heat produced in the cosmic egg and the bursting of the egg have been mentioned in unambiguous language. (Tandva Brahmana vii.10.1; Jaimini Brahmana I.145; III.12; Shatapat Brahmana VI.1.2.3.)
· After the explosion of the primordial egg, the universe expanded. (Mundaka Upanishad I.1.8)
· The stars were formed out of clouds of gases and dust. (RV, V.47.3; X121.5; YV, XIII.30; Tbra 1.5.2.5; S.Bra VII.5.1.8; X.6.5.2; J.Bra II.45 and 62; A.Bra IV.20).
· The earth had its origin from the sun. All the planets of our solar system and the moons of the planets originated primarily from the sun. (TS, III.4.3; VII.3.10; S.Bra, I.4.1.22; J.Bra I.87; Vap, 50.99.53;
· The earth is spherical in shape. (S.Bra VII.1.1.37)
· The sun, the earth, the moon and the other planets and the space are all spherical in shape. (J.Bra, I.2.57; II.62; S.Bra VII.1.1.37)
· The interior of the earth is full of hot molten mass. (YV, XI.57; S.Bra, XIV.9.4.21; T.S. V5.2)
· The earth and the other planets of the solar system rotate round their respective axis and revolve round the sun. (YV, III.6; A.Bra III.4.6)
Early Western Concept
“God has created man and created everything else for the pleasure of man. The centre of the universe is man. Earth is the place where man lives. Hence the anthropocentric universe is bound to be geocentric. Earth is the centre of the universe. It is stationary and everything else is moving around it. The sky is a dome-shaped blue canopy hanging over the earth. The sun and the moon are small objects wandering in the sky. The stars are insignificant specs of light glued to the sky for decorative purpose only.” This was the anthropocentric and geocentric concept of the Western man.
‘The world’, ‘the universe’, ‘the cosmos’ and ‘the Earth’ were synonymous terms in the geocentric concept. Such an idea has now been discarded. It has been realized that the earth occupies an insignificant dot in the illimitable universe.
For Aristotle (384-322 BC), the Greek philosopher, it was the law of Nature for the heavens to be perfect and changeless. Hipparchus (190-120 BC) was a Greek astronomer. Claudius Ptolemies (AD 100-170), who was another Greek astronomer, summarized Hipparchian system and his own in the form of a book. Both these astronomers could visualize the epicycloid motion of planets. Ptolemy gave the idea of a geocentric universe. In the Ptolemaic system, the Earth is pictured as the centre of the universe, with all other astronomical bodies circling around it. The Bible supported the idea of the geocentric universe.
Pliny (AD 23-79) a Roman scholar was astonished to observe a new star in Scorpio. But how could it be possible? If it violated the concept of a ‘perfect and changeless heavens’ could it be correct? Is it not sacrilegious to report a change in the heavens? The medieval astronomers in Europe and Middle East might have observed changing stars in the heavens; but they might not have reported their findings on religious grounds, and might have explained them away as their observational errors. The astronomers of that age, whether Christian or Muslim, saw in the perfection of the heavens a symbol of the perfection of God. He could not dare to find a flaw in the perfection of the created objects of God. For the astronomer, the earth too would have been perfect, had not Adam and Eve committed the first sin. They ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. That was the reason of the earth being imperfect. But nothing like that happened for the heavens. And so the heavens were perfect and changeless.
In the sixteenth century, there was a conceptual change in the Western world, and hence the old idea of the changelessness of the heavens was discarded. In 1543 Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish astronomer proved that the sun was the centre of the universe and that all the planets including the earth revolved round the sun. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) an Italian philosopher supported the Copernican heliocentric theory and also popularized his own theory that each star is a sun attended by a retinue of planets. This was originally the doctrine of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), a German cleric. At that time no one believed the fact that there were stars too dim to see. People questioned, “Why should such invisible stars exist? Why did God create them? Is it not sacrilegious to suggest that God’s creation is purposeless? Bruno was declared to be a heretic and burned at the stake.
The heliocentric concept that the sun was the centre of the universe, was in vogue until Harlow Shapely (1885-1972), an American astronomer gave a big blow to it. He showed that the sun was not the centre of our galaxy and that it was far on the outskirts of the galaxy. According to him, our position in our galaxy (Milky Way) and the then supposed universe was eccentric.
Our galaxy, the Milky Way was then considered the universe. Now it is well known that there are innumerable galaxies and all of them are in motion; all of them move; In our present concept, the universe has no centre. We live in an acentric universe.
The Gregorian calendar
The present calendar used worldwide which says this year as 2008 AD is called the Gregorian calendar introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 by a Papal Bull. This superceded the previous Julian calendar that was introduced in 4 AD and later amended in 525 AD by a Roman abbot Dionysus Exiguous.
By the Papal order, Pope Gregory omitted 10 days in the calendar to make corrections for the difference between the sidereal year and the solar year. Thus, Thursday 4 October 1582 was followed by Friday 15th October 1582. Further corrections were made by omitting 1 day each in the years 1700, 1800 and 1900 AD.
Science in the West in 16th Century
The western world did not know in those days that earth was round in shape that the earth was moving around its own axis and that earth revolved round the sun. Scientist Nicolas Copernicus published the books "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies" in 1543 and dedicated it to the Pope of his times. But this book was rejected and banned and was called the devils work. In 1616 Galileo who observed the sunspots said that the earth is moving (E pur si mouve). He faced the solemn condemnations of the western authorities that proclaimed his theory as heresy. Galileo approaching 70 years was imprisoned, blinded and helpless in the jail, he died after 9 years. In 1600 another scientist Giordano Bruno paid the price of his faith in science at the stakes.
In the absence of the knowledge about the sun, the moon, the earth and their shapes, distances, their orbits etc no calendar can be designed properly. Hence the western calendar was based on the scientific discoveries made in other countries especially India with which it had an active contact even prior to the times of Pythagoras, Megasthanese and Alexander.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)