04-05-2005, 11:16 PM
i think I have an understanding of Hegel's remarks vis a vis Indians in his landmark "Philosophy of History".
Eg. He says" It strikes every one, in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products, and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China - an empire possessing one so remarkable, one going back to the most ancient times. India has not only ancient books relating to religion, and splendid poetical productions, but also ancient codes; the existence of which latter kind of literature has been mentioned as a condition necessary to the origination of History - and yet History itself is not found. "
By History he means a feeling of oneness a sense of belonging. However in our minds History is a narrative of kings and queens and peoples. What he alludes to is that Indians and in particular Hindus do not feel a sense of kindered spirit for their own. And in this they are so differetn despitre having many superb acievements.
I got this relaization while speaking to a visitor of mine. He is an othrodox Hindu well conversant with the rituals etc. Howeve he had no problems in supporting the arrest of the Shankarachrya. His rationale was that the civil authority would be careful of the evidence before making such a move. That the timing and the law under which the Acharya was arrested were particularly demeaning to Hindus at large were lost on him.
Eg. He says" It strikes every one, in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products, and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China - an empire possessing one so remarkable, one going back to the most ancient times. India has not only ancient books relating to religion, and splendid poetical productions, but also ancient codes; the existence of which latter kind of literature has been mentioned as a condition necessary to the origination of History - and yet History itself is not found. "
By History he means a feeling of oneness a sense of belonging. However in our minds History is a narrative of kings and queens and peoples. What he alludes to is that Indians and in particular Hindus do not feel a sense of kindered spirit for their own. And in this they are so differetn despitre having many superb acievements.
I got this relaization while speaking to a visitor of mine. He is an othrodox Hindu well conversant with the rituals etc. Howeve he had no problems in supporting the arrest of the Shankarachrya. His rationale was that the civil authority would be careful of the evidence before making such a move. That the timing and the law under which the Acharya was arrested were particularly demeaning to Hindus at large were lost on him.