04-12-2004, 05:18 AM
Now we shall actually look at MMs contribution to the force of history:
See the following quotes of his:
"The Hindus were a nation of philosophers. Taken as a whole, history supplies no second instance, where the inward life of the soul has completely absorbed all the practical faculties of the whole people, and in fact almost destroyed those faculties by which a nation gains its place in history. It might therefore be justly said that India has no place in the political history of the world''.
He cites Schopenhauer:
``In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life - it will be the solace of my death''.
His speech to the brown sahibs of the ICS:
``If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered over the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention of those who have studied Plato and Kant - I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw the corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life - again I should point to India''.
Here we see man who has never been to India. All information he gets is from the British. So:
1) He reads the Sanskrit literature and see the mark of a great civilization in it- in fact he recommends it as corrective for his own civilization.
2) We have him espouse the "Force of History" view that India had no history of its own- because it was nation of philosophers. This continued to be the western view for a long time. But at least he credited us with having a refined philosophical faculty (more on this below). He could not reconcile the glory of Hindu philosophical thought with the decadent state of India he saw through the British portrayal: a defeated nation that had been conquered by a hand full of white men. A nation which prior to the British conquests (according he British histories) had conquered by the Mohammedans. So he came up with his interpretation of India espoused in the first quote. Given the background, I would tend to interpret him as being taken in by the *British* propaganda of the "Force of history" where it was the natural destiny of a nation like India with no historical sense to fall into the hands of the whitemen.
Finally, note the elements of the newest round of Euro-American propaganda:
1) At least MM thought we had philosophy, but recently many Western scholars have been peddling the view that upaniShads never mattered to the Indians: it was only after the West (MM, AS etc) recognized it, did the elite Indians reading the English translations of the upaniShads consider them philosophical high points.
2) Modern Western scholars work hard to deny the civilizing role of India on the far East and Central Asia that earlier Western scholars noted. Instead they give this credit to China. Note Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs etc" where he ignores the history of billion people and the sub-cultures influenced by them.
3) Modern Western scholars also present the view that upaniShads and Hindu philosophy have nothing to teach other than obscure hocus-pocus.
4) Having scrapped India of its philosophical achievements that their old predecessors were willing to concede, the modern Western scholars paint a new picture of India: "evil" of caste, poverty, lawlessness, "evil" of recognizing ones Hindu identity and rootless, ill-mannered techie slaves with a test for postive western influences.
These are often done by brown sahib sepoys for their gauranganAthas
Thus, I would imagine that the actual process of demonization has increased though shifted to subtle directions and this is what we need to concentrate on.
See the following quotes of his:
"The Hindus were a nation of philosophers. Taken as a whole, history supplies no second instance, where the inward life of the soul has completely absorbed all the practical faculties of the whole people, and in fact almost destroyed those faculties by which a nation gains its place in history. It might therefore be justly said that India has no place in the political history of the world''.
He cites Schopenhauer:
``In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the solace of my life - it will be the solace of my death''.
His speech to the brown sahibs of the ICS:
``If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered over the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention of those who have studied Plato and Kant - I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw the corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life - again I should point to India''.
Here we see man who has never been to India. All information he gets is from the British. So:
1) He reads the Sanskrit literature and see the mark of a great civilization in it- in fact he recommends it as corrective for his own civilization.
2) We have him espouse the "Force of History" view that India had no history of its own- because it was nation of philosophers. This continued to be the western view for a long time. But at least he credited us with having a refined philosophical faculty (more on this below). He could not reconcile the glory of Hindu philosophical thought with the decadent state of India he saw through the British portrayal: a defeated nation that had been conquered by a hand full of white men. A nation which prior to the British conquests (according he British histories) had conquered by the Mohammedans. So he came up with his interpretation of India espoused in the first quote. Given the background, I would tend to interpret him as being taken in by the *British* propaganda of the "Force of history" where it was the natural destiny of a nation like India with no historical sense to fall into the hands of the whitemen.
Finally, note the elements of the newest round of Euro-American propaganda:
1) At least MM thought we had philosophy, but recently many Western scholars have been peddling the view that upaniShads never mattered to the Indians: it was only after the West (MM, AS etc) recognized it, did the elite Indians reading the English translations of the upaniShads consider them philosophical high points.
2) Modern Western scholars work hard to deny the civilizing role of India on the far East and Central Asia that earlier Western scholars noted. Instead they give this credit to China. Note Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs etc" where he ignores the history of billion people and the sub-cultures influenced by them.
3) Modern Western scholars also present the view that upaniShads and Hindu philosophy have nothing to teach other than obscure hocus-pocus.
4) Having scrapped India of its philosophical achievements that their old predecessors were willing to concede, the modern Western scholars paint a new picture of India: "evil" of caste, poverty, lawlessness, "evil" of recognizing ones Hindu identity and rootless, ill-mannered techie slaves with a test for postive western influences.
These are often done by brown sahib sepoys for their gauranganAthas
Thus, I would imagine that the actual process of demonization has increased though shifted to subtle directions and this is what we need to concentrate on.