From: Xavier William <varekatx@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Indian civilization and its contributions to the world
To: sacred-illusions@googlegroups.com, india-unity@yahoogroups.com, indiathinkersnet@yahoogroups.com, KeralaDD@yahoogroups.co.uk, Mahajanapada@yahoogroups.com, issuesonline_worldwide@yahoogroups.com, Janshakti@yahoogroups.com
Dear Vasant,
You have written "... it will be like reading Gita before a donkey. "
It is an old trick to call those who do not agree with you names such as donkey or fool.
Thus the Bible says "The fool sayeth in his heart that there is no God"
But all this shows that opposition to the Gita was there right from the time the Gita was written and there was opposition to the Bible at the time they wrote "The fool sayeth in his heart that there is no God"
The Gita is in essence a running commentary by Sanjay narrating the actions and words of Krisha and Arjuna to the blind Dritharashtr. The scene is the Kurukshetra war in which tens of thousands were arrayed against each other. So the dialogue between Arjuna and Krshna must have been taking place on a huge battle field as large as ten or twenty football grounds and so Sanjay and Dritharahtr must have been at least 500 meters away from krishna. Yet Sanjay not only hears clearly what krishna says but also narrates Krishna's words verbatim to Dritharashtr. It is impossible for any man to hear clearly what is said 500 meters away and that too in the din of a raging battle. It is even more impossible for any man to hear and narrate anything at the same time. What is more Drithashtr was only blind. He was not deaf. So he too could have heard Krshna as clearly as Sanjay did and so the question arises as to the necessity of Sanjay narrating the whole thing when Dritharshtr could hear things as clerly as Sanjay. Also during the delivery of the Gita Krishna also takes on the Viswaroop which would have been terrible enough to frighten the bravest of souls and yet not a soldier flees the scene on either side. Obviously the setting of the Gita is fiction.
The most sublime philosophy in the Gita is the Karma yoga by which Krishna advises that we do our duty irrespective of the outcome. This is like saying play football as best as you can without a care for the outcome. Of course there is pleasure in kicking the ball around. But once you set the goal posts you have to play for an outcome. In fact modern management depends on setting goals and targets and achieving them rather than on following the karma yoga principles of the gita. It may also be noted that though Krishna advises to play the game for the sake of the game he ensures victory in total disregard for his own principles of the Karma yoga by resorting to guile such as bringing in Sikandi to defeat Bheeshma, sending a beggar to get karna's armour and telling Drona that his son had died. It may also be due to the principles of this Karma yoga that India fares so poorly in international competitions in spite of its huge population.
The Bagavath Gita is dated 200 BC or so. At the time there were also other civilizations and philosophies doing the rounds in this world. Thus about 200 years after the Gita Jesus said love your enemies and do good unto those that hate you which is as sublime and as Utopian and impractical as the Karma yoga.
Then there was Confucius in China who lived some 300 years before the the Gita's origin who said "Do not do unto others as you would not like to be done unto you" This as sublime as the Karma Yoga or Jesus' words of loving your enemies but far more pragmatic. Then there were other philosophers such as Tao in China who also contributed much to modern thinking.
Then there was Socrates in Greece who lived 200 years before and Aristotle who lived about hundred years before the Gita was compiled and many others whose contributions to modern science and philosophy are unsurpassed by anything including the Gita.
Similarly Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon and other civilizations also contributed as much or more to modern philosophy and science as the Indian civilization.
One of our members had written that ancient travellers like Ibn Batuta and Marco Polo were all praises for India. But it must be noted that they showered even more praises on China and its glory.
The long and the short of it is that India had a great civilization. But that does not mean that the other civilizations of the world had no relevance. They contributed as much or more to the modern world as the Indian civilization. In fact globalization including globalization of ideas had started thousands of years ago and all civilizations of the ancient world contributed to each other and to a world culture at large and so there is no sense in boasting of our heritage and degrading the other heritages which is typical Bahmanic way of thinking which is that they are the best in the world and all others are chandalas.
The long and the short of it is that if the Indian civilization was great that the other civilizations and their contributions to the world was nothing. We contributed our part and they contributed theirs. let us appreciate them as much as we appreciate our own.
Xavier William |
No comments:
Post a Comment