11-05-2006, 12:01 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In India, also, even down to the nineteenth century, writing was considered too imprecise a means of conveying meaning to have any great communicative importance. Until the seventeenth century, books were inscribed on leaves and sheets of bark , which were hung like washing on lines and were called "treasure houses of the Goddess of Speech." What was truly meant was what was said at the time of composition. Then a rough approximation of this meaning was transmuted into visible symbols and "stored"; but what the true meaning might be could only be conjectured in terms of the personalities, the problems, and the intentions of the composers of the message. Reading became a search for precision--aided but also handicapped by the admittedly imprecise medium of written words.[15]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though Gandhi and Nehru have written volumes their writings have still to be interpreted in light of their circumstances and times. It is this idea of imperfection in writing that allows Indian thought to be hijacked by vested interests. IOW, Gandhi and Nehru can be re-interpreted to mean the opposite of what they actually said and meant!
Also note what was not explored further in the above article
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This conception of conformity or representation of family, community and caste is, of course, most marked in the rhetoric of Hinduism. <b>What seems most noticeable, however, from even a superficial reading of the Hindu religious classics, such as the Gita or the Upanishads is the way in which the ethical appeal of Krishna or of the guru derives not just from his relationship to the caste but from his special relationship to the divine. In this respect there seem to be parallels to what Kennedy sees as the source of the authority of Judeo- Christian rhetoric.</b> This is an aspect that Oliver does not deal with in either of his books and would seem to be a fruitful area for investigation.[19]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I postulate that this idea of proximity to God that Judeo-Christianity picked up from the East that made its appeal more universal.
Even though Gandhi and Nehru have written volumes their writings have still to be interpreted in light of their circumstances and times. It is this idea of imperfection in writing that allows Indian thought to be hijacked by vested interests. IOW, Gandhi and Nehru can be re-interpreted to mean the opposite of what they actually said and meant!
Also note what was not explored further in the above article
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This conception of conformity or representation of family, community and caste is, of course, most marked in the rhetoric of Hinduism. <b>What seems most noticeable, however, from even a superficial reading of the Hindu religious classics, such as the Gita or the Upanishads is the way in which the ethical appeal of Krishna or of the guru derives not just from his relationship to the caste but from his special relationship to the divine. In this respect there seem to be parallels to what Kennedy sees as the source of the authority of Judeo- Christian rhetoric.</b> This is an aspect that Oliver does not deal with in either of his books and would seem to be a fruitful area for investigation.[19]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I postulate that this idea of proximity to God that Judeo-Christianity picked up from the East that made its appeal more universal.