https://www.facebook.com/vallury.sarma/posts/562541410449943
Epilogue
10
10
After 10 days J invites K, S and another friend P for tea. The discussion started with the announcement of division of Andhra Pradesh and came back to the stories of Volataire and Zweig. P was briefed on the stories and the debate.
J – Sarmaji, I feel you did not like the stories.
S - Who told you? I have been, in fact, thinking about these stories for the last ten days. As literature they are excellent stories written by two top class writers. Because of the predominant Indian connection, they should be of special interest to Indians interested in this genre of literature. It is serious fiction with a philosophical undercurrent. It is only the Bhagavad Gita connection that has to be looked into. This is what I thought, when I came to the first meeting. Now I am clear that I was impressed with the story not because it reminds me of the Gita, but it is because it is related to how the Gita was interpreted (or misinterpreted) by people who changed the course of Indian History. We have many incarnations of Virat in the long course of Indian History. In the story, Virat started as giant (Virat) and ended up as a dwarf (Vamana). Vishnu came to Bali as Vamana, sought three feet of land and transformed himself into Virat-Purusha or Trivikrama spanning the universe after receiving the gift. At every stage Virat was haunted, whether it was by his brother’s accusing eyes, the tribal youth’s challenge, or the accusation of the weaver’s wife. Virat reacted immediately on every occasion, accepted the accusation and chose a new path. Both the good Brahmin and Virat as creations of Western authors operated at the level of mind and intellect (manas and buddhi) and not citta or atma or and measures (pramana) of dharmic behaviour, i.e. on the words of Gita itself. Krishna would have called Virat’s behaviour as “kshudram, hridayadaurbalyam”.
S - Who told you? I have been, in fact, thinking about these stories for the last ten days. As literature they are excellent stories written by two top class writers. Because of the predominant Indian connection, they should be of special interest to Indians interested in this genre of literature. It is serious fiction with a philosophical undercurrent. It is only the Bhagavad Gita connection that has to be looked into. This is what I thought, when I came to the first meeting. Now I am clear that I was impressed with the story not because it reminds me of the Gita, but it is because it is related to how the Gita was interpreted (or misinterpreted) by people who changed the course of Indian History. We have many incarnations of Virat in the long course of Indian History. In the story, Virat started as giant (Virat) and ended up as a dwarf (Vamana). Vishnu came to Bali as Vamana, sought three feet of land and transformed himself into Virat-Purusha or Trivikrama spanning the universe after receiving the gift. At every stage Virat was haunted, whether it was by his brother’s accusing eyes, the tribal youth’s challenge, or the accusation of the weaver’s wife. Virat reacted immediately on every occasion, accepted the accusation and chose a new path. Both the good Brahmin and Virat as creations of Western authors operated at the level of mind and intellect (manas and buddhi) and not citta or atma or and measures (pramana) of dharmic behaviour, i.e. on the words of Gita itself. Krishna would have called Virat’s behaviour as “kshudram, hridayadaurbalyam”.
I shall even put the Buddha, Gandhi, Nehru and (Potti) Sriramulu in Virat’s category. All of them must have known the Gita very well. In my opinion the only one who understood the spirit of the Gita among Indian leaders was Aurobindo. It is easy to understand why Gita is misinterpreted so much. The fact that there are over 3500 commentaries with each commentator proposing his own view and saying that Gita means it, confirms it. People like us can appreciate the Gita better, by reading the text as it is as sabda pramana (True Testimony), the word of God. (Interpretations are illusionary).
Buddha was a Kshatriya prince and must have received trayi, vaarta, anvikshiki and danda-niti as part of his education just like our Virat. His logic was superior and he taught from his own experience and the enlightenment that dawned on him. He did not have any Guru. He rejected the karma kanda part of the Vedas and elaborated the Upanishadic teaching, only emphasizing jnana obtained through logical reasoning. He also said he was not God or his messenger or incarnation and recommended rationality. He also recommended Yoga, Ashtanga yoga, not different from yoga in Krishna’s Gita. But none of his followers ever became a Buddha again. Buddhism, which is not holistic, is a subset of Sanatana Dharma. The fact is that Buddha’s teachings ultimately did not help India. Indian history shows that the surrender to foreign aggression was because of the weakness preached by Buddhism. Ahimsa paramao dharma is only for monks and not even for householders; and certainly not for kings, army and police. The impact on India is seen right from the Kalinga war. When Buddha left home, his family was ruined; and his kingdom was shattered just like the weaver’s family suffered because of the teaching of Virat, when he was in forest. Asoka’s case was worse than that of the Buddha and the weaver. There was nothing wrong with his becoming a follower of the Buddha after the Kalinga war, but it was a gross error to continue as emperor and also for not making arrangements for proper succession and military strength to protect the integrity of his empire. A Buddhist preaching Buddhism cannot rule a kingdom, his place is a monastery. His stone edicts did not save his empire spanning from Gandhara to Pandya Desa from breaking up soon after his death.
Gandhi claimed that the Gita was his guide and source of solace whenever he was in despair. But did he understand its purport fully? His Vysya and Jaina tendencies made him to overlook the fact that the Gita is taught by one Kshatriya warrior to another on a battle field. His obsession to live up to his Mahatma-hood did not make him an astute politician or a statesman. His Khilaphat movement was a disaster. His Quit India cry hastened partition, which he could not prevent. The only person who could understand the Gita as a Kshatriya both in the physical plane and on the spiritual plane was Aurobindo. After his taking shelter in French India, he concentrated only on adhyaatma yoga. Potti Sriramaulu was a Gandhian and his sacrifice was like that of the weaver who followed Virat in his sannyaasa phase. The scenario he created in 1952 is being replayed in 2013. He ended up like Zweig. Nehru was another Virat. He thought that he taught Panchaseela to Maoists and abdicated his responsibilities to Buddhists.
No comments:
Post a Comment