British in India: religion and socio-politics

[suryaz]

quote: Originally posted by Janus:Jijaji

 

To us Bhaktivinode Thakur is an acharya, but to the British he was simple another “Woggy”, a term referring to a mudperson, a pollywog, something lower in evolution, not really a human at all, or at best a savage. Perhaps the Thakur was accounted as being halfway humanized (but confined to a place among the lower races such as the Americans) because a time or two he perhaps wore pants............. .......Marijuana? the British couldn't care less, just added already to the Hindu fatalism........... ** Ok...anyone else?

 

 

Suryaz:

The Act of 1833 out ruled discrimination against a person in terms of caste colour creed etc. (Clauses: 85-9; Copeland 1941)

 

The Act of 1853 rendered placement in the Civil Service (in India) determined through one's qualification in terms of education, ability and integrity (Copeland 1941; Muir ???:304) The Act of 1858 saw the British Crown assume "direct charge of government in India". Queen Victoria encouraged her administration to govern for the "benefit of all her subjects" and respect the "ancient rites, usages and customs of India" (Copeland 1941:36). Queen Victoria encouraged her administration to govern for the "benefit of all her subjects" and respect the "ancient rites, usages and customs of India" (Copeland 1941:36).

 

IP: Logged Jndas:

Then why did she steal all the jewels from the temples in India for her "crown jewels"? Even today they refuse to return them. Of course, seeing the indian government I don't think it would be a very good idea anyway. Originally posted by jndas:Then why did she steal all the jewels from the temples in India for her "crown jewels"? Even today they refuse to return them. Of course, seeing the indian government I don't think it would be a very good idea anyway.

 

 

Suryaz:

Queen Victoria did not steal the “crown jewels”. Where is your proof of this? When, where, and how did she steal them? There are so many fables about these things.

 

[Gauracandra]

Here is an interesting article. In addition, here are two quick sites on the Kohinoor Diamond. The British scavenged the treasures from all over the world. Not just India. Don't they still have the nose of the sphinx (or maybe beard?, I can't remember) and wont return it to Egypt?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/news/words/general/000504.shtml

 

http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/19970806/21850763.html

 

Gauracandra

 

Our jewels in their crown

 

The Kohinoor Diamond is still the brightest jewel in the British monarch’s crown. Other priceless Indian treasures ‘taken away’ at some point of history are yet to be returned. Akhilesh Mithal on the national treasures still waiting to come back home.

 

On June 29, 1850, the British warship HMS Medea docked in an English port carrying a very special object from India – the Kohinoor diamond. The priceless jewel was confiscated at the end of the Sikh War by the British and was shipped off home to be gifted to the Queen.

 

The story goes that a John Lawrence had tucked in the Kohinoor diamond in his waistcoat pocket and had forgotten all about it. It was his valet who saved the day when Queen Victoria enquired about it. The man remembered that he had indeed seen a ‘piece of glass’ in his master’s pocket. The East India Company had wanted to keep the Kohinoor to “pay for war”, but Lord Dalhousie scuttled that plan as he had earlier promised that the diamond would “find its final and fitting resting place in the crown of Britain.”

 

In a letter to Queen Victoria, Lord Dalhousie wrote: “Formerly placed in the throne of the Emperors of Delhi; captured there in his invasion by Nader Shah – thence transferred to the Kings of Kabul and extorted from Shah Shuja by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the Koh-i-noor may be regarded as a historical symbol of the conquest of India, and the Governor General rejoices that it has found fitting rest in Your Majesty’s Crown.”

 

Queen Victoria was presented the Kohinoor in a ceremony that took place at 4 pm on July 3, 1850. Hobson-Jobson noted the subsequent cutting of the diamond: “In 1850-51, before being shown at the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, it went through the process of cutting, which, for reasons unintelligible to ordinary mortals, reduced its weight from 186 1/16 carats to 106 1/16.”

 

Queen Victoria’s status improved on acquiring the diamond and on January 1, 1877 she became ‘Kaiser-i-Hind’ or Empress of India. To this day, the Kohinoor rests in the crown of the British monarch and despite India claiming its return, it seems that the diamond has indeed found its “final” if not “fitting” place.

 

The British Empire has come and gone, but the British continue to live in the past. How else would one explain the fact that the Kohinoor diamond still remains in England? Britain should return it to India as a gesture of goodwill. An apology would also be appreciated. After all, the Kohinoor was, to put it bluntly, filched.

 

The Kohinoor is not the only treasure that still remains in the hands of the British Crown. The Crystal Throne of the Last Mughal, Bahadur Shah Zafar, his gold crown, and the jewelled ‘Huma’ bird which adorned the throne of Tipu Sultan are yet to be returned to their rightful place.

 

If the British were to return these national treasures which no one sees or cares for in Britain, it would cost them nothing and earn a great deal of goodwill.

 

The Padishahnama of Shah Jahan is another priceless artefact in exile. It was taken away at the end of the 18th century from the Nawab of Awadh in Lucknow. The legitimate heir of Asafuddowlah was dethroned as he was seen as a threat by the British. In his place, the British put up a ‘puppet”. In a show of gratitude, this ‘successor’ gifted vast sums of money and priceless manuscripts to the British – one of them being the Padishahnama.

 

This illuminated manuscript of the chronicle of Shah Jahan’s reign was on display for a month – and that too the foreshortened month of February – in the National Museum, New Delhi. The display was poor – book illustrations are not supposed to be mounted above the level of vision but should be seen from above or at the level of the eye – and so was the lighting. Despite all these shortcomings, the visiting Padishahnama created quite a stir. People travelled from everywhere to Delhi to see it.

 

Britain should consider a new resolution for the forthcoming millennium. This could be to remedy the wrongs done in the past by returning treasures to India that it had “taken” in the course of history. The facts speak for themselves. India was the richest country in the world in 1600 and remained so throughout the 17th and even part of the 18th century – despite the rampant looting on a sustained scale unprecedented in history.

 

Occidental greed started quite early on and it wasn’t an Englishman but a French gentleman who opened the floodgates. John Baptiste Tavernier, a French jeweler visiting India in the 17th century, wrote: “The diamond is the most precious of all stones, and it is the article of trade to which I am most devoted. In order to acquire a thorough knowledge of it I resolved to visit all the mines, and one or two of the rivers where it is found ... I have accordingly been at four mines ... and at one of the two rivers where diamonds are obtained, and I have encountered there neither the difficulties nor the barbarities with which those imperfectly acquainted with the country have sought to terrify me. Thus I am able to claim that I have cleared the way for others and that I am the first European who has opened the route for Feringhees to these mines which are the only places in the world where the diamond is to be found.”

 

What Tavernier opened was not so much a route but a floodgate. Readers familiar with Sinbad the Sailor will remember the story of large chunks of meat being thrown down from a precipice to fall on diamonds which would be embedded on the meat. Large birds like eagles would then swoop down and pick up the meat. When they came to the top and settled down to a meal, the awaiting men would make a great noise and drive the birds away, picking up the diamonds from the meat.

 

Tavernier pointed out that all this was not true and any trader with the courage to brave the seas could safely visit the diamond bearing areas and collect the stones he could afford to buy. Tavernier did rather well himself during his journeys to India. He made six trips between 1631 and 1668 buying and selling gems and jewels. On his return to France in 1668, he became a celebrity and an object of almost universal curiosity.

 

Louis XIV summoned Tavernier to his court. The meetings resulted in French monarch buying 44 large and 1,122 small diamonds at a cost of what would have been then equivalent to about $200,000. In addition, Tavernier was elevated to nobility by being made a Baron.

 

The most important diamond in the cache of 44 big stones that Louis XIV bought was a blue diamond with a price tag of 220,000 livres. This was the famous Hope diamond. Today, it is the most popular of the hundreds of thousands of exhibits on display in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington.

 

The Hope is an Indian diamond and is considered to be cursed as it was stolen from a temple. The story goes that it formed the eye of an icon. Was it the third eye of the Lord Shiva which when gazed upon consumes the viewer with fire? One is not quite sure, but what befell Tavernier and his king after the Hope became French property underlines the legend that bad luck pursues the illegal owners of this stolen diamond. Baron Jean Baptiste Tavernier died penniless and as an obscure exile. Louis XIV, who had till then lived a charmed life, died miserably of gangrene after suffering unbearable pain for three weeks.

 

The myths and legends of India have gods, goddesses and heroes like Maharathi Karna wearing named jewels. The famous gems (manis) included Kaustubha and Vaidurya. Because the rich and powerful gods and rulers wore jewels, there was a strong belief that gems have the power of altering human destiny. This notion is deeply ingrained in Indians and cuts across religious language and caste lines.

 

In 1958, the Hope was loaned to the Smithsonian by the jeweler Harry Winston. It no longer carries his name – which means that it has been donated to the institution. Perhaps the US should now consider returning the gem.

 

India nearly became a basket case in 1947. Today it is limping back to wealth. Here is hoping the British will learn to live in the changed circumstances of the present rather in the past. It is only by restoring property to their rightful owners that they will lift the curse of history from their shoulders.

[Gauracandra]

Here is another article I found:

 

India's jewel in the British crown

 

Pressure is mounting on England's royals to return India's

fabled Kohinoor diamond, writes Neena Bhandari.

 

As the 47th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

conference concluded last week, images of our "common

wealth" in Britain come flashing to mind.

 

Growing up in India, I would linger over images of jewels

and marbles, paintings and sculptures that had been shipped

to the British Isles from its numerous colonies. Of

particular interest were pictures of the Kohinoor diamond,

neatly the centrepiece of the Queen Mother's crown.

 

Several years later, I got a chance to see the real diamond,

said to have caused more intrigue and bloodshed than any

other gem in history. On a cold, wet day, I stood in the

queue with hundreds of others from different nationalities

to have a glimpse of the diamond secured in the Crown Jewels

section of the Tower of London. I must confess the deep

sense of anger and frustration at having to pay a

substantial fee and then wait for hours to see something

that belonged to my country.

 

The Kohinoor had a chequered history before it was taken

from the 11-year-old Sikh ruler Maharaja Duleep Singh in

1849 by the then Governor-General, Lord Dalhousie, as a

gesture of submission to imperial rule.

 

The earliest authentic reference to the Kohinoor, which was

unearthed from a mine in South India, is found in the

Baburnama, the memoirs of Mughal Emperor Babur.

 

One account says that in 1297, Sultan Allauddin Khilji,

ruler of Delhi from 1295 to 1316, defeated the last king of

Gujarat and got the Kohinoor. Another says the diamond came

into the hands of the Hindu ruler of Gwalior and was

presented to Mughal Emperor Humayun by the family of Raja

Bikramajit as a token of gratitude for protection. It formed

part of the Mughal treasure for the next two centuries until

in 1813, Shah Shoojah took refuge with Ranjeet Singh, father

of Duleep Singh.

 

Once in England, Queen Victoria had the diamond recut,

reducing it from about 190 to 108 carats. In the coronation

crown, which has more than 2,800 diamonds, Kohinoor is set

in the front cross with another large 17.34-carat diamond

given to Queen Victoria by the Sultan of Turkey.

 

Since then, different individuals have surfaced both in

Britain and in India staking their claim to the diamond. As

the second Anglo-Sikh battle, after which the Kohinoor fell

into British hands, took place on territory now in Pakistan,

Islamabad is yet another claimant to the jewel.

 

India, along with Greece, China, Sri Lanka and Nigeria, has

been demanding the return of treasures taken during British

rule. The United Nations minimal draft legislation prepared

by the International Institute for the Unification of

Private Law (Unidroit) provides for retrospective moves that

can allow a country to claim back stolen treasures lodged in

another country.

 

While Britain may have joined 91 other countries in signing

the United Nations Convention on Stolen Treasures in 1970,

it is unlikely to sign the Unidroit draft legislation of

1995 as that would open the legal doors for India and other

countries to reclaim the countless treasures lying in

various British museums and with the royalty.

 

Bhaskar Ghorpade, president of the Association for the

Restitution of the Cultural Heritage of India (ARCH-India),

says, "The diamond - belonging to a class of property which

was removed in such circumstances that title never passed or

is defective and voidable under contemporary international

law - is ground enough for India to be Kohinoor's legitimate

claimant."

 

Ghorpade, a London-based barrister who successfully fought

the case for the restoration of the famed Pathur Nataraj

statue to India, says, "The debate of the once richer and

stronger nations holding the cultural treasures of other

nations is moving from museums into parliaments.

International pressure and national sentiment should be

created to get back the Kohinoor through diplomatic

dialogue.

 

"Kohinoor is India's national treasure and the case for

reclaiming the treasure is very strong. It is time the

British at least concede in principle that they possess

looted property, which has to be returned to the country of

origin.''

 

Other items that India wants to have returned include the

Mughal manuscript, the Badshahnamah, which is in Windsor

library; the first or second century Amravati marbles; a

gold sword of Emperor Jehangir and the Timor Ruby, both of

which are in the Queen's collection; archives in the former

India Office library (now part of the British Library); and

paintings.

 

In addition, there are troves of sculptures and manuscripts

in the Victoria and Albert Museum, which were gifted to

successive viceroys or acquired by company collectors such

as William Jones, who founded the Royal Asiatic Society.

 

A standing commission on museums and galleries had reported

that the Indian collections were scandalously neglected.

Only 1 or 2 per cent of the Indian collection is on display;

most remains stored.

 

Ghorpade says: "Laser technology enables British museums to

continue to display perfect reproductions while returning

the treasures back to the rightful claimants."

[suryaz]

:

Kohinoor is India's national treasure and the case for

reclaiming the treasure is very strong.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by suryaz:

India only came into existence in 1947

 

How generous! I have been thinking all along that India just exists in my imagination! Thanks for reminding that it has actually come into existence!

 

Your concept of nation is very limited in its scope. A nation is not defined by its constitution or boundaries or government. It is defined by an underlying cultural and religious fabric. Though, by your definition, Kashi and Rameshwaram may have been parts of 2 different nations, the people of India didn't perceive so as they undertook pilgrimage to both these places. Nor was the mobility of the people across states restricted. Perhaps, the ancients had a clear distinction between a state (which is symbolized by a government, constitution and boundaries) and a nation (which is based on socio-cultural and religious structures).

 

Let me put it a little different. Over long periods of time, a nation may be governed by many a state.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Don't mind the pointless arguments. Some people have a fondness for the British empire and refuse to acknowledge the great attrocities they committed throughout the world.

[Janus]

Dear Suryaz

I certainly had no intention of upsetting you by my comments regarding the mentality of the British Empire. But if you seek to hearken back to an era of true British Nobility, you will have to go back before the Empire to find it. Back before the Normans and even before the Saxons, King Vortergerns henchman. You will have to go back all the way to a time when Britian wasn’t even Britian, but was known by other names, such as Merlin’s Enclosure, and as Ynys Prydein, the last remaining outpost of the Isle of the Mighty.

It is therein where the once and future king still sleeps that we may find the glory of our ancestral heritage, not in the later betrayers of that heritage. For you must understand (if you are to understand) that they who betrayed the trust of indigionus peoples everywhere they established their Empire and robbed them of their heritage betrayed also our trust and robbed us of our heritage too.

You will have to go back all the way to find it, and anything after that that you accept in it’s stead will be only an imposture.

 

But if you make that journey and when you do find it, then you will find a glorious thing. Then also if you wish you may become an Initiate of that Noble Tradition and take upon yourself the responsibility of bringing it forward, of reviving it, and then of dovetailing it to our Krsna Consciousness movement.

 

Indeed it is so prophesized that this should be so. Virgil in the Fourth Ecologue predicted the appearance of the Golden Age and it’s golden child Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu when he wrote:

 

Now the last great age begun,

By Cumae’s seer foretold;

New born the mighty cycles run

Their course, and quit the old.

Now too, the Virgin reappears

And Saturn re-controls the spheres.

 

Now is the new race on the way

From heaven; do thou befriend

The Infant, all but born, whose day

The iron brood shall end

And with the golden fill the earth.

O chaste Lucina, speed his birth

Virgil

 

“WHO SHALL BE PENDRAGON IN THE TIME WHEN SATURN SHALL DESEND FROM HIS SPHERE?”

 

Perhaps you?

 

We can come back to this later, for the time being however I would like to address a few points, which moreso than my previous post seem to me to be the origin of your upset. These are specifically related to our World View, or to an internal dissonance created by ones having two world views, one which is conscious, or external, and the other of which is subconscious, or internalized and which is thus the more powerful in it’s influence over us, our perceptions and thoughts.

 

 

I had wondered at your writing, wondered as to whether to handle it as a question or as a post made not from out of some philosophical justification, some desire to obtain the truth, but rather from an emotional cause with the goal of re-establishing your equilibrium, which the idea of the British Empire as an being an evil empire, seems to have set spinning.

 

 

You challenge my depiction of the demoniac mentality with “proofs” that suggest that you are neither thinking deeply nor have any great convincement of the slightest truth of our philosophy, your external world view.

 

For instance it is evident from your post that you conclude that history equals progress, that time is linier rather than cyclic and that the Governments of the World are not demoniac and degraded, that they stand on at least truth, things that are all asserted by your internal World View.

 

You are also presuming yourself to be autonomous, a free thinker, liberated rather than conditioned, objective rather than subjective, in position and possession already of the truth.

 

Eloquent speech does not qualify one as a person of integrity, in either an individual or in a country. One’s thoughts, ones words, and ones actions must be above suspicion. That they are not, or that they are not in the case of the British Empire has been already more than just suggested by others posting upon this and the other thread.

 

You do not even challenge your own postulates however after reading all of this. No doubt arises in your mind that you may not be right so then you must be right, at least for you and you must be seen as being right by others. All this reveals you.

 

In the manner established by Sri Jiva for the establishing of the truth one must recognize the doubts that arise from any postulate and then argue strongly against one own postulate upon the strength of those doubts and the evidence provided that they are true.

 

Not to do so and not even to admit to having doubts hardly goes to demonstrate any degree of objectivity.

 

In a person proceeding from a philosophical justification, one who is in actuality searching for the truth; challenging questions arise from such doubts which then compel one to relevant and open inquiry, not only regarding the truth but also of the methodology by which the truth can be established.

A simple attempt to provide oneself with the means to continue ones own self delusion that one is situated in the truth with such comforting explanations as that Janus is just a loony or a lie does not evidence any commitmant at all to the truth, to finding it or owning it or serving it.

 

That it is not enough for you to just agree to disagree but that you betray your emotional need by creating another thread just to address my comments is extra evidence to me that you lack both the intellectual and emotional maturity to come to a position where at you are even capable of being honest with yourself, let alone brave enough to face the possibility that the truth that you have such faith in just might be another lie.

 

Tomorrow however is another day.

Ys, Bhakta George

 

[Janus]

Since your so fond of dates:

 

New Years Day, 1924 London

 

Hjalmar Schacht, the new Reich Commissioner for National Currency meets with Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England in London. Schacht proposes a collaberation between Great Britian’s World Empire and Germany. Schacht proposes that Norman provide half the capital to a new German credit bank, one that would issue notes in pound sterling. Withing 48 hours Norman not only approves the loan at an exceptionally low interest rate of a flat five percent, but also convinces London bankers to accept bills far in excess of the loan. The goal; of this all was the financing of the rearmamament of Germany in violation of the Versailles Treaty, dangerous, but most profitable to the British financiers. Later in 1934 a select group of London financiers gathered around Norman and it was decided that Hitler had a good future and that he wasn’t just a temporary nightmere to the civilized world as his critics had supposed. Norman convinced his directors of the Bank of England that Hitlers Germany was a great investment and that they could successfully provide Hitler with covert help. One of the major financiers needed very little convincment for he had already read Hitlers book Mien Kamp and approved wholeheartedly. Thus Hitler’s rise to power was financed to a large degree by the British financiers and the mystery of why Hitler did not really consider the British to be his enemies for the longest time is cleared up.

 

Oh, also the Nazi’s took lessons in the Creation of their Concentration Camps by following the example of the British, who earlier around the turn of the century had set up death camps in South Africa in which tens of thousands of women and children were starved to death and allowed to die of disease in order to make the Boers submit. The British invented the Concentration Camp.

All of this and more is simply a matter of history, British history, just another few of it’s sterling moments.

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Janus:

The British invented the Concentration Camp.

.

The British did not.

 

While “slavery” has been around since the time of yore - In South America there were the Incurs etc wherein human sacrifice and slavery were the norm. The Druids promoted human sacrifice.

Historically recorded:

 

In Africa it is historically recorded in early Egypt there was the enslavement and ethnic cleansing of the Jews.

 

The Aryan invasion of the Dravidians was also a form of ethnic cleansing and colonisation of a people. The institution of the caste system was (and in some places still is) a form of slavery for the sudras. Human sacrifice was also a religious deal

 

Ancient Rome promoted slavery, ethnic cleansing and colonialism.

 

African tribes freely sold people from neighbouring tribes as slaves among themselves (before the Portuguese started buying them)

 

These are just a few.

 

Another important view is that:

 

Women have in any point in history been sold as slaves in the name of marriage by modern and/or indigenous groups

 

So who does the jewel of the “crown jewels” belong to? Perhaps it should go the to poor sudra (slave) who found it in the mine.

 

Dear Janus,

 

You certainly wrote and interesting letter – thank you. Yes you are right Janus – my aim is to create further thinking – that is all – win or lose whatever –

 

Humm - you are right, Yes I am human and I have feelings (emotions). When something is conceived and/or presented as perfect but creates more hurt than betterment I tend to object.

 

I liked Buddy’s tone better

 

Love Suryaz

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-15-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The Arian invasion of the Dravidians was also a form of ethnic cleansing and colonisation of a people.

There never was an Aryan invasion of India. Not a single ancient text in India speaks of such an invasion. Foolish British indologists took the battles between the devas and asuras mentioned in the Vedas to be an invasion of India by light skinned people.

[Janus]

“An accusation frequently leveled against the ancient Druids is that they practiced human sacrifice. There is, however, little evidence to support this view. That the Celts, as a race, believed in the willing sacrifice of a life for the good of the people is incontrovertible, but it is often forgotten that such sacrifices were made willingly and were not coerced.”

 

The Druid Source Book, from the intro by John Matthews

 

Boundless joy

 

“No greater love.”

 

The more complicated ones models are the more miserable one is, the more upon the metal platform where Sri Jiva contends that logic is incapable of providing conclusive evidence of the truth.

I was not however invoking but the most trivial appeal to your reasoning, not claiming that all British in India were thought themselves more civilized than the Hindus. I am sure that there must have been one or two that went native and had to be hospitalized, or a couple more that went off to be Kings or Queens of Siam or Afghanistran. Heavens no. All the sane British knew that they were more civilized than the Hindus. When your conditioned your conditioned by your society, by the vision of reality that it plants within our own tiny brains. There is simply no other way to look at things, any, none. The delusion is complete and reinforced by everyone around you.

You cannot legislate away bigotry or small mindedness, greed, hostility or any demoniac quality, be ye Imperius Rex or the Virgin Queen. Christian claimants that they viewed the Hindus with “equal vision” did not mean to them that they were robbing the AmerIndians of their spiritual heritage by taking their children away from them and placing them in boarding schools where the merest utterance of the Great Spirits name in your Native Laguage was cause for a severe whipping. No, they did not see with equal vision but from an imagined platform of superiority. Stealing the Crown Jewels is just another thing, cattle raiding is part of their heritage. But that darned technology stood in their way of just relating to the Hindu mano e mano.

 

Then there were the dark ages, what was the cause of that? Nearest I can figure is the second law of thermodynamics, after Rome, continued merrily on it’s way. Cartesian split me eye. Mental entropy. Hundreds of years of it, and then boom, boom, boom, up to the Age of Reason, to Bacon, Descartes, Newton Locke and Smith.

 

I read once where someone was sating that the 20th century would never be forgotten for introducing us to speed, something that any visitor to an amusement park has known the thrill of. Basically what that means is that between the end of the Dark Ages and today there have been only two world views that have gained ascendancy to World Views. Two is a lot and the transition period between is about four hundred years and still it isn’t complete.

 

Everyone in the World today is born into the World View of the Machine Age, plus everyone is also taught values that conflict with the practice of cut throat capitalism, which causes a horrible split that effects us even sexually, what to say of occasioning prejudice. We have lost the straight line.

 

Because of this thousands of young Westerners, both boys and girls embraced Hare Krsna, even while they were actually incapable of believing in such things as swan air planes, demi-gods with four heads etc. The best they could picture was a devil and a hippie with a halo holding a lamb that he had rescued.

 

“Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

 

I was in my mid to late teens when I started chanting Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare. That was in the sixties when most of the devotees were a few years at least older than me. They were adults to me, many of them, and the few that seemed closer to my own age were not as well educated As was I, nor none at all already the performers of what Aliester Crowly considered to be the most powerful ancient ritual of the West still in extent, the Liber Samek rite which he added to his translation of the Grimiore Lemegeton, or the Book of Evil Spirits.

 

Had I not surrendered then to Krsna whatever it was that came through and attached itself to me and drew off my life force would probably not have weaned and become a nice pet. I call him Asmodeus, but all of this is beside the point.

 

I am not quite sure what your likening of the past deeds of primitive peoples to the to the horrendous crimes by civilized nations has to do with my point that you appear to be contesting, which was that Bhaktivinode Thakur was a realist AND a transcendentalist (could anything be more real?) and that recognizing the existence of RACIST attidudes that he dealt with them most judiciously and in the manner also of a pure devotee and a mahajana. This of course is only speculation upon my part, or is it something growling?

 

Whether the ancient Druids did or did not practice human sacrifice, the modern Druids do not, whereas it cannot been seen that the British Government has made just as much advance, that is if you liken human sacrifice to the systematic starvation of thousands of women and children. I do not. I would much rather have my heart cut out or to be hanged, clubbed, drowned or have my throat slit than I would rather die of starvation, and if that was what it would take to make one of you Krsna conscious, at least there'd be a purpose to it other than in dollars and cents.

 

Within the very last century the British deliberately starved and murdered tens of thousands of South Africaner women and children and collaborated with the Nazi’s for the furtherance of their Empirialist policies and for financial gain.

 

The simple fact of this removes the British Government of then of any claim to a moral upper hand over the ancient “savages” whose sensibilities would have been shocked and offended the primitive cultures that you mention.

 

One sacrifice that the Druids and the Celts have been proven to have performed was the sacrifice of captured wealth, tossing into streams and ponds, returning what was given them to Those who gave them victory, and Who also they recognized as the sole proprietors of the earth.

 

How one could equate the practice of individual and willing sacrifice for the common good to the practice of the murder of multitudes for monetary rewards would be evident to the Druids as ignorance.

 

You simply seem to want to make such a comparison because your arguement is as far as I have seen not existant. Facts attached to soppostions without development of a theory or model do not equal a proposition.

 

You infer that I am wrong, but you do so in order to win your argument (which again is?). You never quite made one, only posted up your dates and the circumstances associated with those dates in order to cast doubts upon my claim that the British Overlords of India were racist, something that British many British commentators freely admit to. And the only reason that you preferred Buddy was because Buddy wasn't talking to you directly and so you could read his posts that you find "interesting".

Rest assured I am no less your wellwisher than I was before, not that this is meaningful to you in your estimate.

Hari bol

 

What does this say about if not your morality then your emotional and intellectual maturity, and your acceptance of Gaudeya Vedanta philosophy and of even Bhagavan Sri Krsnas Words Themselves. What you are fighting for, you egoism, is not worthy grief and it is certainly not worthy of the sacrifice of your integrity.

 

You have yourself established what means you accept as proving the truth, that being “historical” evidence, only you refuse to accept whatever historical evidence that is offered to you that doesn’t suite your purpose which is to be seen as what? As being a Guru? An authority? Even your little grasp of history is superficial, of the degree that you can get from watching PBS, not even that. I got a better historical education that you seem to possess from reading Classics Illustrated Comic books, and that was by the time I was 7 or 8. I suggest that it is time for you to move on Prabhu, meaning that it is time for you to go back and retrace your steps until you find the moment in which you decided to make of yourself a braying jackass, and when you find that moment of choice again, decide to be something else. You can still be Guru, or Pendragon for that matter, but only for real, no cheating is allowed, or as Lady Day once put it “If you want to sing the Blues you gots ta pay your dues.”

 

Hari bol

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Janus:

“Even your little grasp of history is superficial, of the degree that you can get from watching PBS, not even that.

What is PBS?

 

 

[valaya]

Originally posted by suryaz:

What is PBS?

 

 

Public Broadcasting System, a non-commercial television channel throughout the USA. Canada also has similar channels and I expect Australia does, too.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 11-18-2001).]

[Janus]

"What is PBS?"

 

Ah, that is better. Submissive and relevant inquiry.

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by jndas:

There never was an Aryan invasion of India. Not a single ancient text in India speaks of such an invasion. Foolish British indologists took the battles between the devas and asuras mentioned in the Vedas to be an invasion of India by light skinned people.

"...Krsna-samhita (1879)..... Bhaktivinoda was attempting to analyze Indian history and to show the development of Vaishnavism according to what he called the adhunika-vada, or the modern approach...... Bhaktivinoda was showing that it was indeed possible to take a critical look at one's own tradition, and at the same time maintain a deep and abiding faith within that tradition..... ."

 

 

Herein Bhaktivinoda states:

1. The Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C. ..." (Shukavac).

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

Herein Bhaktivinoda states:

1. The Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C. ..." (Shukavac).

 

 

Now, what do we have here ?

Bhaktivinoda Acharya said this way before 1947

but according to Suryaz India didn't exist

before 1947 .....

 

forget PBS

try QED !

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Herein Bhaktivinoda states:

1. The Aryans first entered India from the North West and subjugated the indigenous tribes around 4463 B.C. ..." (Shukavac).

Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote several books targeted specifically at the british educated Indian, in which he makes statements which contradict traditional teachings. For example he says that the Srimad Bhagavatam was written 1,000 years ago by a brahmana in South India (i.e. it was never authored by Vyasa), that Krishna, Shiva and other Devas where nothing but tribal kings of the past, that there is no such thing as hellish planets, that the Aryan's invaded india, etc. His purpose was to not waste time debating what the British Indologists had implanted in the minds of the educated Indians, but to just bring them to the point of devotion by speaking a language they understood.

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

Now, what do we have here ?

Bhaktivinoda Acharya said this way before 1947

but according to Suryaz India didn't exist

before 1947 .....

 

forget PBS

try QED !

What is “India” today is not what people pre-1947 may have referred to in short as 'India'.

 

Post the Act of 1858 (which saw the British Crown assumed direct charge of government in the Indian sub-continent, up until -1947 was, what is to day called Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (some other islands also) plus “India”. The above were a collection of British colonies referred to as the Asian sub-continent aks the Indian sub-continent.

What is called India today pre British rule was a collection of separate Hindu kingdoms in the south and the northern part of what we today call India, plus Bangladesh and Pakistan were under Muslim rule from the beginning of the 13th century.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-19-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Again it should be noted that not a single ancient indian text speaks about an Aryan invasion of India. The entire concept was just taken from thin air by the British Indologists to explain the linguistic similarities between Indian languages and western languages.

 

Such a huge event, yet it doesn't find a single mention in any scriptural or historical text?

 

Sometimes when you point these things out people become offended and go a little loony, as can be seen up there in this thread.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).]

[gHari]

I am not sure how many of those dates, if any, are actually held dear by Srila Bhaktivinoda. He seemed to be only going through an academic exercise to show that the modern ideas did not affect Vaishnava truth.

 

His true feelings about dates seem to be alluded to in the introduction to Krsna-samhita found on the internet:

We have to determine just when the Vaishnava dharma became established in our county, but before discussing this it is necessary to discuss many other topics. Therefore, first we will discuss, according to the modern opinion, the dates of the most important past events in India history. Then we will determine the date of many of the respected books. As we fix these dates we will establish the history of the Vaishnava dharma, and whatever seems clear, according to the modern opinion, we will discuss. Personally we follow the judgment of time according to ancient custom, but in order to benefit people of the present age we will accept the modern system.

 

Perhaps he is only referring to the use of B.C. and A.D., but quite possibly he means something different.

 

 

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God

[suryaz]

Originally posted by jndas:

Sometimes when you point these things out people become offended go a little loony, as can be seen up there in this thread.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).]

What are you implying - Bhaktivinoda also said the Aryans were alien to the land-mass of what is today called India.

 

Just also to add – Prabhupada said in a lecture in Melbourne Australia in either 1976 of 1975 (one of the two) that whites are Aryans. Moreover, he said whites or fair skinned people are the descendents of Maharaja Pariksit.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-20-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

What is “India” today is not what people pre-1947 may have referred to in short as 'India'.

 

Post the Act of 1858 (which saw the British Crown assumed direct charge of government in the Indian sub-continent, up until -1947 was, what is to day called Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (some other islands also) plus “India”. The above were a collection of British colonies referred to as the Asian sub-continent aks the Indian sub-continent.

What is called India today pre British rule was a collection of separate Hindu kingdoms in the south and the northern part of what we today call India, plus Bangladesh and Pakistan were under Muslim rule from the beginning of the 13th century.

 

We can apply the same order of

hair splitting distinction

to

France

Germany

Poland

Russia

Italy

China

etc etc

 

No decent historian would

disagree that there is a contiguity of national identity in terms of history

and culture with all these countries

regardless of their

changing borders, different administrations,

disunity

and so on

at various points in time.

 

History, is by definition, a "big picture"

discipline.

The details will afford greater meaning for you

when you can see the big picture.

 

Try:

"A History of India"

Herman Kulke & Dietmar Rothermund

ISBN 0-415-04799-4

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-19-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Where is India?

 

Are we talking about the pre-1947 India ruled by the British? Or the post-1947 India? Does it include Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan? or maybe it is the 13th century India of hindu kingdoms? or the India based on the Act of 1858? or maybe the india of 5000 BC? Or maybe there is no India, but only the land of Bharata?

 

India, India where are you?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Just also to add – Prabhupada said in a lecture in Melbourne Australia in either 1976 of 1975 (one of the two) that whites are Aryans. Moreover, he said whites or fair shinned people are the descendents of Maharaja Pariksit.

If you would read Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam commentaries, he makes it clear how the westerners are descendents or Aryans. They are descendents of kings who fled from India.

 

Srila Prabhupada does not accept the Aryan invasion theory, and none of our ancient texts speak of such a thing.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

India, India where are you?

Just to make this discussion even more meaningless, I would like to know whether the India we are discussing includes Pak Occupied Kashmir. Because if it doesn't I won't take part in the discussions. Jai Hind!

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 11-19-2001).]