Important post 81 on <b>"The Hoax Of Vasudhaiva kuTumbakam I - Hitopadesha"</b> by Bodhi above.
Pandyan, did you mean this post:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=82783
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jun 13 2008, 11:00 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jun 13 2008, 11:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In response to Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagvad Gita By: Kalyan Viswanathan, I commented:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Author has exposed many of his misunderstandings both in the realm of the political history of the Indian Independance Movement as well as that of the dharmic philosophy of ahiMsA.
1. In the dhArmik philosophy, ahiMsA is a tool for individual spiritual sAdhanA, and NOT a policy of state or political leadership. ahiMsA whether listed as the second yama of the eight libs of yoga, as one of the shIla within the eight-fold path of buddha, or as one of the pa~ncha mahAbhUta in jina-darshana - ALWAYS it is a tool for the sadhana of an individual. Author would do well to show us where and in which scripture has it ever been proposed as a tool for politics or a policy of state - which would go out to lend scriptural validity of Gandhi"s half baked interpretation of ahiMsA as a political tool. If it can not be shown, then let this remain a Gandhian innovation, unapproved by Hindu scriptures and tradition. Any effort of indirectly procuring a scriptural approval, as author has tried to do, is futile.
2. Author would do well by going through shAnti parvan and anushAsana parvan - the 12th and 13th books - of mahAbhArata. Policy for state and dharma of politicians (kshatriyas) is discussed in extremely minute details by pitAmaha bhIShma with pANDava-s in general and the eldest pANDava in particular. In fact referring to the message of kR^iShNa, from the eyes of a rightful politician, bhIShma is very clear that for a political leader, rAja-dharma does invariably involve hiMsA when needed, and is in fact ahiMsA.
He re-explains from a statesman"s viewpoint what shrI kR^iShNa had already established in gItA. Soceity kind of outsources violence to those who take up rAja-dharma, and these noble kshatriyas carry out the violence, to let the soceity be non-violent. And therefore, for a political leader to have an extremist position of absolute non-violence is actually adharma, and gAndhiji stands accused of propogating that adharma. (Author kind of agreed to it at one place - but lost that thought when started talking about Gandhi)
3. Author does not seem to be aware, that this topic has been a subject of great contemplation by the second National Poet of Free India - shrI rAma dhArI siMha dinakar, who was a profound gAndhian, but also had a deep and thorough grasp on dharmic concepts - much better than his mentor Gandhi.
So dinakar"s mind, as he writes in his works, was greatly troubled when he saw the Gandhi"s (mis-)interpretaions on ahiMsA and his extremist positions on it. This struggle in his mind produced a classical poetry he penned as a book called "kurukshetra" in 1946 - the book is still considered a classic today and taught as a finest example of modern Hindi poetry in the Universities. In the end dinakar had to call himself a bad gandhian as he could not succumb to this non-violent extremism propogated by his mentor.
Allow me to present one stanza from that book:
tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa? bahut hoon jaanataa mai bhee, magar,
tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa viraagi yogiyon ke dharma hain;
yaaki unaki neeti, jinake haath me shaayak nahee;
yaa mrishaa paashanDa yah us kaapurush balheen kaa -
jo sadaa bhayabheet rahata yuddha se, yeh sochakar
glaanimay jeevan bahut achchha, maraNa achchaa nahee
bhIshma says:
{tyaga, tapa, bhiksha - I know about (these implements of ahiMsa) enough and more, but:
leave these for the dharma of virakta yogis alone,
or for those probably who hold not the duty-rod of the statesmen,
or these could be useful techniques for the cowards afraid of war -
who consider living an insultful life better than dying a graceful death}
also:
kaanan me dekh asthi-punja muni-pungavo ka
daitya-vadha ka kiya praNa jab rama ne
"mati-bhrashta maanavo ke shodha ka upaaya ek
shastra hee hai?" poochhaa tha komal-manaa-vaam ne
"nahee priye, sudhar manushya sakata hai tap,
tyaag se bhee," uttar diyaa tha ghana-shyam ne,
"tapa kaa kintu, vasha chalataa nahee sadaiv,
patit-samooh kee ku-vrittiyo ke saamane"
{Beholding the mountains of bones of the sages in the forest
when Lord Rama took a vow to exterminate off all the daitya-s,
His tender left (Seeta) had thus asked: can there be -
no non-violent way of bringing these evil-minded to proper path?
Yes Darling, had replied the dark one, man can of course bring about change
through non-violent tapa and tyaaga,
but when faced with such tendencies of sin-fallen as these
that policy does not always yield the results
4. Author contradicts himself. In the beginning he rightly pointed out that soceities under buddhism entered a great decline when from a spiritual nAstika system of world-renouncing-men it spanned its scope to entire soceity thereby declining the kshatriya qualities. And that exactly is what Gandhi attempted, and arguably acheived, in our modern times too. Thanks to Gandhi, and neo-gandhians, nation and especially its political class is generally bereft of natural kshatriya qualities in accordance to rAja-dharma. Day to day events in Indian horizon attest to this.
5. Common sense has it, that extremes in the practical world are bad:
ati kA bhalA na bolanA ati kI bhalI na chUp
ati kA bhalA na barasana, ati kI bhalI na dhUp (abdur rahIm khAnakhAnA)
{too much talking is bad, so is extreme silence
too much rains are bad and so is scorching sun}
Gandhi stands accused of extremism, and his political application of extreme ahiMsA defies common sense and established wisdom.
6. When Author credits gandhi with initiative of converting the Independance Struggle to a mass popular movement - he only repeats a myth created in last several decades by Pseudo-Gandhians making Gandhi our National Idol. Was Bal Gangadhara Tilak any less popular? Much before Gandhi appeared, Tilak had already taken the movement to the masses. Same was the case with Lala Lajpat Rai whose popularity had created a solid network of patriotic groups in all towns and cities in North and West India.
7. Has author even read "bhagvad-gItA" written by MK Gandhi - which makes explicit Gandhi"s own understanding on BG? I would bet he has not, because almost every thing author says about violence being allowed in dharma etc are negated by Gandhi most explicitly. Like the neo-Gandhian pseculars of today, Gandhi himself considers the event of mahabharata war and particularly that of a kR^iShNa delivering the message of gItA an unhistoric event and only symbolic mythology. In his interpretation, the whole war stuff is referring to an internal warfare of spiritual nature and all the bloodshed is a symbolic affaire. Much like his (mis-)interpretation of Koran"s invitation of jihad to Moslem.
8. Having said all the above, I am not discrediting many a wonderful services Gandhi did to the Indian Soceity, especially for the downtrodden. I also admire his uprightness against the christian missionary activities. My scope of objections is only limited to the author equating Gita"s Message with that of Gandhi - because they are diametrically opposite. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]82783[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pandyan, did you mean this post:
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=82783
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jun 13 2008, 11:00 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jun 13 2008, 11:00 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->In response to Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagvad Gita By: Kalyan Viswanathan, I commented:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Author has exposed many of his misunderstandings both in the realm of the political history of the Indian Independance Movement as well as that of the dharmic philosophy of ahiMsA.
1. In the dhArmik philosophy, ahiMsA is a tool for individual spiritual sAdhanA, and NOT a policy of state or political leadership. ahiMsA whether listed as the second yama of the eight libs of yoga, as one of the shIla within the eight-fold path of buddha, or as one of the pa~ncha mahAbhUta in jina-darshana - ALWAYS it is a tool for the sadhana of an individual. Author would do well to show us where and in which scripture has it ever been proposed as a tool for politics or a policy of state - which would go out to lend scriptural validity of Gandhi"s half baked interpretation of ahiMsA as a political tool. If it can not be shown, then let this remain a Gandhian innovation, unapproved by Hindu scriptures and tradition. Any effort of indirectly procuring a scriptural approval, as author has tried to do, is futile.
2. Author would do well by going through shAnti parvan and anushAsana parvan - the 12th and 13th books - of mahAbhArata. Policy for state and dharma of politicians (kshatriyas) is discussed in extremely minute details by pitAmaha bhIShma with pANDava-s in general and the eldest pANDava in particular. In fact referring to the message of kR^iShNa, from the eyes of a rightful politician, bhIShma is very clear that for a political leader, rAja-dharma does invariably involve hiMsA when needed, and is in fact ahiMsA.
He re-explains from a statesman"s viewpoint what shrI kR^iShNa had already established in gItA. Soceity kind of outsources violence to those who take up rAja-dharma, and these noble kshatriyas carry out the violence, to let the soceity be non-violent. And therefore, for a political leader to have an extremist position of absolute non-violence is actually adharma, and gAndhiji stands accused of propogating that adharma. (Author kind of agreed to it at one place - but lost that thought when started talking about Gandhi)
3. Author does not seem to be aware, that this topic has been a subject of great contemplation by the second National Poet of Free India - shrI rAma dhArI siMha dinakar, who was a profound gAndhian, but also had a deep and thorough grasp on dharmic concepts - much better than his mentor Gandhi.
So dinakar"s mind, as he writes in his works, was greatly troubled when he saw the Gandhi"s (mis-)interpretaions on ahiMsA and his extremist positions on it. This struggle in his mind produced a classical poetry he penned as a book called "kurukshetra" in 1946 - the book is still considered a classic today and taught as a finest example of modern Hindi poetry in the Universities. In the end dinakar had to call himself a bad gandhian as he could not succumb to this non-violent extremism propogated by his mentor.
Allow me to present one stanza from that book:
tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa? bahut hoon jaanataa mai bhee, magar,
tyaaga, tapa, bhikshaa viraagi yogiyon ke dharma hain;
yaaki unaki neeti, jinake haath me shaayak nahee;
yaa mrishaa paashanDa yah us kaapurush balheen kaa -
jo sadaa bhayabheet rahata yuddha se, yeh sochakar
glaanimay jeevan bahut achchha, maraNa achchaa nahee
bhIshma says:
{tyaga, tapa, bhiksha - I know about (these implements of ahiMsa) enough and more, but:
leave these for the dharma of virakta yogis alone,
or for those probably who hold not the duty-rod of the statesmen,
or these could be useful techniques for the cowards afraid of war -
who consider living an insultful life better than dying a graceful death}
also:
kaanan me dekh asthi-punja muni-pungavo ka
daitya-vadha ka kiya praNa jab rama ne
"mati-bhrashta maanavo ke shodha ka upaaya ek
shastra hee hai?" poochhaa tha komal-manaa-vaam ne
"nahee priye, sudhar manushya sakata hai tap,
tyaag se bhee," uttar diyaa tha ghana-shyam ne,
"tapa kaa kintu, vasha chalataa nahee sadaiv,
patit-samooh kee ku-vrittiyo ke saamane"
{Beholding the mountains of bones of the sages in the forest
when Lord Rama took a vow to exterminate off all the daitya-s,
His tender left (Seeta) had thus asked: can there be -
no non-violent way of bringing these evil-minded to proper path?
Yes Darling, had replied the dark one, man can of course bring about change
through non-violent tapa and tyaaga,
but when faced with such tendencies of sin-fallen as these
that policy does not always yield the results
4. Author contradicts himself. In the beginning he rightly pointed out that soceities under buddhism entered a great decline when from a spiritual nAstika system of world-renouncing-men it spanned its scope to entire soceity thereby declining the kshatriya qualities. And that exactly is what Gandhi attempted, and arguably acheived, in our modern times too. Thanks to Gandhi, and neo-gandhians, nation and especially its political class is generally bereft of natural kshatriya qualities in accordance to rAja-dharma. Day to day events in Indian horizon attest to this.
5. Common sense has it, that extremes in the practical world are bad:
ati kA bhalA na bolanA ati kI bhalI na chUp
ati kA bhalA na barasana, ati kI bhalI na dhUp (abdur rahIm khAnakhAnA)
{too much talking is bad, so is extreme silence
too much rains are bad and so is scorching sun}
Gandhi stands accused of extremism, and his political application of extreme ahiMsA defies common sense and established wisdom.
6. When Author credits gandhi with initiative of converting the Independance Struggle to a mass popular movement - he only repeats a myth created in last several decades by Pseudo-Gandhians making Gandhi our National Idol. Was Bal Gangadhara Tilak any less popular? Much before Gandhi appeared, Tilak had already taken the movement to the masses. Same was the case with Lala Lajpat Rai whose popularity had created a solid network of patriotic groups in all towns and cities in North and West India.
7. Has author even read "bhagvad-gItA" written by MK Gandhi - which makes explicit Gandhi"s own understanding on BG? I would bet he has not, because almost every thing author says about violence being allowed in dharma etc are negated by Gandhi most explicitly. Like the neo-Gandhian pseculars of today, Gandhi himself considers the event of mahabharata war and particularly that of a kR^iShNa delivering the message of gItA an unhistoric event and only symbolic mythology. In his interpretation, the whole war stuff is referring to an internal warfare of spiritual nature and all the bloodshed is a symbolic affaire. Much like his (mis-)interpretation of Koran"s invitation of jihad to Moslem.
8. Having said all the above, I am not discrediting many a wonderful services Gandhi did to the Indian Soceity, especially for the downtrodden. I also admire his uprightness against the christian missionary activities. My scope of objections is only limited to the author equating Gita"s Message with that of Gandhi - because they are diametrically opposite. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]82783[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->